This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic
redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged.
Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases,
place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a
requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See
§ When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of
Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The
G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or
from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in
"What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on
Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (
Speedy deletion criterion G10 and
G3 may apply.) See also§ Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (
Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a
cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the
pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "
MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of
namespace aliases such as WP:.
Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under
speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a
novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular,
redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are
candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for
G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to
page movers and admins), perform a
round-robin move. If not, take the article to
Requested moves.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see
Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid
accidental linking and make the creation of
duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "
Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the
Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including
CamelCase links (e.g.
WolVes) and old
subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the
wikishark or
pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral language
are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but
verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{
R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate →
Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the
words to avoid guidelines and the general
neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not
established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under
deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream
reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that
RfD is not the place to
resolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{
subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{
subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{
Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in the
page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider using
What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Its prod expired, so ANDSF (disambiguation) is no more
mwwvconverse∫
edits 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nominator. Internet search results for "ANDSF" alone refer overwhelmingly to the former military. --
NFSreloaded (
talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget and add hatnote per nom.
Okmrman (
talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, since the current target is also known as "ANDSF" and a hatnote has already been placed there.
CycloneYoristalk! 01:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or Retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambiguation page (first, restore the dab, as there is
WP:NOPRIMARY). Google search ANSDF is dominated by military, ANSDF abbreviation - by 3GPP. --
Викидим (
talk) 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget, restore
ANDSF (disambiguation) and round-robin move them, as neither of the two articles seems to be an overwhelmingly primary topic.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have restored
ANDSF (disambiguation) as a PROD deletion, and updated it to no primary so it doesn't get deleted immediately because of ONEOTHER. I'm neutral, and this is not an indication of my support here for NOPRIMARY. Jay 💬 10:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect should be deleted. It was created by
user:Matthiaspaul in June 2020 to point at a section heading which does not exist now and never did exist in the past. The article
Vernier scale does not explain anywhere what "nonius connector" means. The only page linking to this redirect is the see also section of
Nonius (device), which is more relevant than anything currently at
Vernier scale but also does not explain what "nonius connector" means. This redirect, beyond being entirely unhelpful, is actively confusing to readers, and it should be deleted to turn the link
nonius connector red, in case someone who knows what this is and cares about it will see that an article is needed. –
jacobolus(t) 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
While this term is currently mentioned in the article, the concept writ large generally doesn't have some specific connection to the Jewish law concept of "voluntary war". Delete per
WP:REDLINK.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 22:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I was skeptical about making the redirect to this page, since the redirect is more of a generic term that can apply to almost any country's traditional laws of armed conflict. Feel free to delete the redirect, if you should deem it not meeting the redirect guidelines. We all make mistakes. Cheers.
Davidbena (
talk) 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move
Bashira (film) to
Bashira, as the article about the film at least has citations and seems more notable than the newspaper in Iraq which had zero sources for 16 years and which we weren't able to find any sources for now. If/when sources are found for the newspaper, the article could be recreated as
Bashira (newspaper).
Cielquiparle (
talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirects to an article that doesn't mention this subject. Delete the redirect and let the redlinks be red again.
Yappy2bhere (
talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Neither of these are mentioned in the target article, leaving the redirects unclear in what they refer to. (However,
Alcohol expectancies is a {{R with history}}.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect is protected, discussion created on behalf of
2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9460:4DA2:ADC1:9976. Their request was the following:Bui Quoc Huy and Bùi Quang Huy are 2 different names in Vietnamese. They're not interchangeable names. Bui Quoc Huy page should not be a redirect page. It should be deleted and applied article creation protection afterwards due to persistent sock activities in the past. Those socks have been trying to write a PR article on Bui Quoc Huy for years in Vietnamese Wikipedia too. See
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smagzine for more information. This page is a direct result of a sock master. It was later turned into a redirect page.Tollens (
talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Various "ingesting/eating soap" redirects towards "Washing out the mouth with soap"
I do not believe any of these phrases has been used in regular context as synonymous phrases for the target. If anything, these phrases most likely refer to soap-eating, which apparently there is a word for:
Sapophagia, which we apparently do not have an article for. And ...
Wiktionary:sapophagia does not exist either.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, inclined to agree that the phrases don't really match the article's intended meaning (more around taste and contemporarily, as an expression). The closest to relevance is perhaps "ingest" but it's not a likely phrase either. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, the spoken word in English can easily sound like it may have an "n" in the middle and therefore is perhaps plausible someone could be searching a word from what they hear. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 19:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
...wah-huh? I... have never heard "Croagunk" pronounced like that, ever? Isn't it pronounced like "croak" (y'know, as in a frog) with the K lopped off, and then the word "gunk"?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
i was thinking it might have been an accent thing or a "regiice" case, but i haven't seen that in action cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 21:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It may well be accent related. When I say it, it could at times possibly sound like it has an "n" in the middle. Redirects are
WP:CHEAP after all and the bar for keeping is lower, although I don't have too much conviction in this view, hence the "weak". Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
apparently initially a misreading of its english name due to a low quality picture, currently a name for other unrelated things (mostly fursonas, apparently) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only thing I can think of with this name would be a fusion of
Croagunk with
Golurk in Pokemon Infinite Fusion... except Croagunk isn't IN Infinite Fusion.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
that's a 2022 animated short, currently not mentioned in the target. if mentions of it could be made somewhere, would it be in the current target? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
that's an uppercase i, not a lowercase L. doesn't seem like a plausible or possible typo, considering how the search function works cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
a... fan-made finnish name used in a
fandom wiki and nowhere else? it seems to have been speculation before, but i found nothing that suggests the creator didn't come up with it on the spot cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, seems like it was created as a short-lived article under the misinterpretation as to what the translation from Japanese would be (and also perhaps as a duplicate of an existing one). I have looked at the original article from '07 and its references on archive.org, which have no mention of this name. Google only turns up fan speculation from around the time, nothing credible. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
funny, but i found nothing suggesting that this was ever even speculated to be its name cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
it just occurred to me that "stubby" is an actual word
which means i should look for any mention of a bidoof with that nickname, which is worse than looking for a pokémon with that name for its species cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Checked Bulbapedia. According to them, while there are no in-game trades featuring a Bidoof named Stubby in any generation, in the Sinnoh games, you can enter a Super Contest and end up facing down a Pokemon with the nickname "Stubby."The issue is that Stubby is a
Barboach, not a Bidoof. This is true in both
Gen 4 and
Gen 8.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Only redirect of its kind, with most others of the same format omitting the space between the colon and identifier.
mwwvconverse∫
edits 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the only results i've seen of this that aren't misspellings of "starhawk" are speculation or wikipedia-related tools cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the only results i've seen of this that aren't misspellings of "starbird" are speculation or wikipedia-related tools cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
doesn't seem like it was ever intended or speculated to be its name. wouldn't work in-game either, as it's 12 characters long when pokémon names had a 10 character limit until gen 5 (it was raised to 12 in gen 6). see
talk:chingling for proof that this isn't even the first time this was questioned cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
may admittedly be jumping the gun here. this doesn't seem similar to any possible spelling or pronunciation of its name cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
fan speculation for its english name, on the same vein as
laxbe which i nominated a little under (or was it over?) a month ago. unlike laxbe, i found a few results, but they pretty solidly established this as a fan name that was dropped in favor of its admittedly inferior official name cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep if a reference to this as a fan-name is added. If it has a few results it seems to be a decently plausible search target, however niche.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article.
Searching the rest of Wikipedia for this phrase, the phrase seems to be mentioned in multiple articles, but none of the respective articles seems to define this redirect adequately to be an appropriate target for this redirect.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A redirect to Seznam.cz seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different websites.
Zoznam.sk looks more like a tabloid than independent source, and I can't find any evidence that both sites are owned by the same agency/publisher. I would suggest to delete and leave as an empty page until someone did a research about the site with proper references.
Clara A. Djalim (
talk) 10:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Victims of a shooting generally do not have articles unless they become notable in their own right. It isn't appropriate to associate a search term of their names with an event which took their life. The individuals would already appear in search results on the event article without the need of an explicit redirect. I am unsure if there is specific policy around this, as
WP:VICTIM merely mentions outright articles specifically. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Your argument that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is poor and is not in itself a reason why the aforementioned should be kept as redirects. We have to ask for what benefit and purpose does an article or redirect serve in its existence? I don't see any value in these redirects and as the victims are all deceased, cannot decide themselves if they'd want their identities associated with such an atrocity. I don't see any policy specific to this circumstance, which is probably why there is no agreed precedent. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is so stupefying (pun intended). Date rape drugs are hardly the only thing in the world that could be considered "stupefying". Maybe retarget to
wikt:stupefying?
Duckmather (
talk) 04:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment as original creator I'm pretty sure I created this redirect when working on a crime page or criminal bio. I have no objection to retargeting.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Right off the bat, my very first thought when seeing the word "stupefying" was immediately the "Stupefy" spell from Harry Potter, followed immediately by "this is a synonym for 'astounding'/'shocking'/'amazing'". Needless to say that pointing this to
Date rape drug or
narcotic, or really ANYTHING pertaining to drugs, would be... well,
WP:STUPEFYING. this is not a real redirect, I'm piping it to WP:SURPRISE for the bit.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Atypical typo in title. Thousands of diocese, and only one "Catholicn" redirect.
BD2412T 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Seems like {{Db-error}} page move happened, without any significant history.
Catalk to me! 06:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry to reply like this, but aren't you an admin? You can delete this without fuss if this wasn't listed here.
Intrisit (
talk) 17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Recommend deletion of this redirect, unless a
reliable source can be found that betamine = betanin. Currently, the only evidence that's been presented is a 1980 patent that doesn't exactly say betamine = betanin.
Google Scholar turns up three results and
Google turns up nothing relevant.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Please check out the chemical formulae. Unless I misread something, the formula in that patent for betamine is the same as in the article for betanin.
Grv87 (
talk) 16:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The source that you found, Hagers Handbuch der Pharmazeutischen Praxis, Vol. 2, edition of 1969, lists synonyms:
> Beetenrot. Betanin. Rouge de betterave. Bétamine. Rosso di barbabietola. Betamina. (E 162)
Grv87 (
talk) 18:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources such as the CAS database (
SciFinder) and PubChem
1 indicate betamine is the common name for a compound with the formula
C9H10I2N2O2, for which enwiki has not content. The name should be vacant until there is content about the compound.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Mdewman6's findings --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The previous discussion on this seemed to be to merge into
digital nomad; however, no mention of this term is on the subject page. I would propose deleting this until some serious RS can be found for this term.
GnocchiFan (
talk) 22:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An extremely unlikely search term and a typo that even cannot be accidentally done. Just note that First Great Western was the former name of the current Great Western Railway
JuniperChill (
talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [edited 09:50, 29 May 2024 UTC]reply
weak deleteFirst f Great Western. This is reading the corporate logo as "First f" which is not completely implausible given how it was rendered in e.g. what Commons calls the "corporate blue" livery (see
image) but I can't find evidence it is commonly used.
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, we don't have
First f as seen at
FirstGroup logo so a clear reason for deletion. Plus FGW was out of business 9 years ago so its even more unlikely. But obviously keep
First Great WesternJuniperChill (
talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteFirst Great Western Express. It wouldn't have been an implausible way to distinguish from
First Great Western Link but the only uses I can find are "First Great Western express" (i.e. express trains that happen to be operated by First Great Western).
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete first two and Tentative delete the third, though with the note that they're all being deleted for different reasons and I'm not sure they should've been grouped like this. --The first one, delete due to unlikely typo. --The second, delete due to unlikely/vague search term (Greater?? And are we sure that they were talking about a railway when all they called it is a Western??? Could've been a movie for all we know) opinion withdrawn 00:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) --The third, tentative delete due to being... possibly unlikely? The term 'express' does narrow down that we're talking about a train, and "First Great Western" WAS the name of this rail line at one point. I could see this alternately being kept and tagged as Unnecessary Disambig.With the very different reasons why each one of these are being talked about, lastly, I propose handing nom a
WP:MINNOW for grouping these together instead of keeping them separate, as this could've resulted in-- and could still result in-- a minor
WP:TRAINWRECK.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I'll allow First Greater Western being kept, though I'll also note that this means that we are now officially in Minor Trainwreck territory. ...Ironic, considering we're talking about railways.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I did not think this thru. All of them are about railways all linking to the current GWR. I just thought that all three of them are very unlikely typos or search terms for FGW hence why I bundled them together. I initially thought
WP:TRAINWRECK was talking about the notabilty stuff related to actual train crashes like the
Stonehaven derailment or about whether to include it in an article like the EMR derailment on the
List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2024.
JuniperChill (
talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope,
WP:TRAINWRECK is about how each one of these redirects has something else potentially wrong with it-- or in one case, has nothing wrong with it-- and thus we can't weigh them on the same merits, meaning that the resulting discussion gets confusing fast. I say a minor trainwreck-- and only minnowed you instead of a full-on trouting-- because there's only three redirects in the discussion, so the discussion is at least somewhat navigable.(See
WP:UPPERCASE for more "Wait, I thought this shortcut meant X but it's actually talking about Y" stuff x3)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's
Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page
Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [
[2]]. And anyway
Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete we don't have plural qualifiers for things in the singular even if there were multiple rivers with this name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a redirect so that concern shouldn't apply. All the best: RichFarmbrough 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Having a plural redirect to the DAB may suggest to readers there is an article about multiple rivers. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So a random reader is looking at the DAB page, clicks "what links here" and, because he sees a plural parenthetical disambiguator, makes an assumption that there will be a page about multiple rivers on the disambiguation page he has left. Seems very unlikely to me. However we could redirect to section where that section is "Rivers". This seems to be pure in the sense that we would redirect "Mayors of Foo" to a mayors section on
Foo if there was one, or a list of mayors of Foo, or a dab page, or section of a dab page. All the best: RichFarmbrough 17:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's no mention of "slime" or of "Phytomyxea" at the target. A better target might be
Slime mold or perhaps
Phytomyxea.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, shd be Phytomyxea. There was no need to bring this here, all we needed to do was fix the redirect target.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 19:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Should be redirected to
Phytomyxea, ideally to a new pathology section. — Snoteleks (
talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
wiktionary has nothing on a direct link between "kkk" and "kakaka" besides an unsourced, unquoted example on
"ka", experience in brazil tells me people do not want to type more letters. if you want to argue in favor of "ka" as a phonetic spelling of the letter k in portuguese, go ahead, i guess. either way, weak retarget to
lol if it can be proven that anyone uses it, delete otherwise cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete; this nickname seems to be almost entirely unused. A quick google search doesn't link "Emo-Vader" to Kylo Ren beyond a couple of Reddit threads.
Loytra (
talk) 13:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is supposed to be a variant of
Sverker, a name for two Swedish kings. However, no reliable sources seem to use this name. From the article
Sverker I of Sweden, this was deleted already
in 2013 due to lack of sources. There have been similar issues with other articles related to names of medieval Swedes, see e.g.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richardice of Sweden.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Several reliable sources are available to substantiate this as a legitimate English
exonym for Swedish Sverker, which would be enough for a redirect, if not a mention in the articles. Among them: Nordische Personnamen in England; Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910, (new ed. ISBN 139783747703144); Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times; Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916, L390900; The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book; 0lof van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937, L356736: Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire; Gillian Fellows-Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968, L8111566 - Where shall we put them? --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 10:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of these refs, I have access to
the second and
the last one. Could you point out the pages? The Domesday book names are also searchable at
[3], but I can't find the relevant entry (perhaps it is spelled in some other way in this database). I believe criterion 8 of
WP:R#DELETE might be applicable if one has to dig up the name from such books.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 11:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The first ref is available at
[4]. Variants like Swartgar and Swertgar are listed on p.136, but I can't seem to be able to find Sweartgar.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 15:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I had missed other pages which include this name: All pages with titles beginning with Sweartgar. If there is a consensus to delete this page, I would request them to be deleted also, although I don't know how to amend the RfD. They were all created by
User:Againme or SergeWoodzing, both of whom have been alerted.
Jähmefyysikko (
talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect has targeted
Psychological stress,
Stressed Out (disambiguation) and
Stressed Out, the Twenty One Pilots song. Its was pointing to the DAB from 2019 until last month and I changed it back to the DAB today. In terms of the discussions it seems there is a consensus that the Twenty One Pilots song is primary for the title case version per
WP:DIFFCAPS, see discussions at
Talk:Stressed Out and an older one at
Talk:Stressed Out (A Tribe Called Quest song)#Requested move 26 November 2015. In terms of Psychological stress I understand we aren't a dictionary but at the same time it could be argued that its safest to disambiguate the lower case. In terms of the options, option A, target Twenty One Pilots song, option B, target DAB, option C, target Psychological stress. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
B either the generic meaning or Twenty One Pilots song could be primary so its probably best to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
162 etc.: The closer of the 1st RM
Special:Diff/694445799 created a redirect to Stress (psychological) in 2015 and it was
changed to the DAB page in 2016 and ended up targeting the Twenty One Pilots song as it was moved to the base name in September 2016 which seems to have been an error from the page move or just people not thinking DIFFCAPS was appropriate. It was changed back to the DAB by me in 2019 and stayed this way until last month when you changed it to the Twenty One Pilots song. I then changed it back to the DAB. So the undiscussed change to target the Twenty One Pilots song need discussion here as it could arguable be changed back to the original target. If all the uses were upper case and
Psychological stress didn't exist I agree the default would be to follow the primary topic title case but there is a generic meaning though as noted I'm not sure how likely it is. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
C with a hatnote to the disambiguation page. At this capitalisation,
and capitalisation matters, my judgement is that most readers are looking for the feeling of
psychological stress and not a song. There's no merit in B because all the entries on the dab page are Title Case.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
With
fewer than one hit per day on average, no incoming links and no article that would actually be titled "stressed out", it could really be deleted (option D, anyone?). Although capitalization certainly does matter, it's also true searchers often do skip using the shift key. If "stressed out" really were a likely alternative search term for "psychological stress", I'd say proper capitalization wins out, but I don't see many readers expecting that, and I'd hate to put a hatnote on
psychological stress pointing to list of songs, so I'd avoid option C. And just as we shouldn't assume searchers skipping the shift key want a lower-case article, we also shouldn't assume they want the upper-case title, even though with a hatnote already on
Stressed Out, that's less of an issue. So option A is reasonable, but because capitalization matters and because we can't say with certainty what most of the tiny number of readers landing on the redirect want, absent deletion I lean toward option B.
Station1 (
talk) 06:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Should
Stressed out be deleted, typing "stressed out" in search would result in a reader reaching the page at
Stressed Out. This means that "option D" would result in the same thing as option A.
162 etc. (
talk) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good point. And I suppose someone would just recreate a redirect eventually anyway.
Station1 (
talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per European misconceptions on the name --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 04:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What is the utility of a redirect that facilitates a misconception?
RegalZ8790 (
talk) 04:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
wP:RKEEP IT gets users where they want to go so is a viable {{R from search term}} -- we have these tags, so obviously, they are being used. --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep both. These terms are both used to refer to the target. Formula Indy per above, an example for F-Indy:
[7] although "F.Indy" and "F Indy" are more common the existence of this redirect will help search engines direct people using those search terms to the correct target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems questionable whether there is a primary topic for this term when considering
Stream water (and
Drinking water). For example, a search for images and videos of "running water" shows many pictures of water flowing in rivers and creeks. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 02:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In the context of someone searching in an encyclopedia, tap water is the primary topic. Negligible amount of people are going to search for the vague concept of [water that is flowing], instead of searching stream, river, etc. Tap water is a specific concept that readers would expect.
Catalk to me! 06:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Running water isn't exclusive to the faucet and one could argue that running stream water could mean the difference between life and death. I suppose, this could be turned into a broad concept topic or something.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 04:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Running water is the opposite of
stagnant water in the context of watercourses and associated bodies of water. So it is not restricted to tap water. So just turn it into a disambiguation page --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 05:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I can get behind a Disambiguation page for this. Running water meaning water flowing in rivers and streams is also important in religious (see:
mikvah) and mythological contexts, most popularly known in the
vampire weakness of not being able to cross said water. For that reason alone I can't say that someone searching for this would be unlikely to mean rivers and such.
Fieari (
talk) 07:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambig this is equally likely to refer to tap water and water that is flowing in streams, etc.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems the film was never known by this name as I cannot find it anywhere in the article. Only a single reference to the
1982 film is made. Kailash29792(talk) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I decided to look up "Kanye East" on Wikipedia and found that the page redirected here. It was previously deleted for vandalism back in 2005 (see
Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Kanye+East&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist). The page was originally created as a redirect to
Kanye North, a valid redirect that is mentioned on the target page, before being redirected to this page as a bot. Considering that there is no "Kanye East" mentioned on the target page, I'd say this might qualify for
G3, but I'm sending it here as I know some people would disagree. The user who created the page also has a history of creating pages that get speedy deleted, and removing speedy deletion tags from other pages.
108.21.221.8 (
talk) 01:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Kailash29792 No offense, but maybe research the topic before making ambiguous claims like this? Just search up "kanye east constituency" and you will see a couple of search results
48JCL(
talk) 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is indeed such a thing as "Kanye East". As described in
this report by Botswana's "Delimitation Commission"(?), they have decided to rename the "Kanye North" constituency to "Kanye East" - scroll down to page 91. (They also renamed "Kanye South" to "Kanye West" - see page 93 - which probably provoked most of the interest in this; there was even a
Depths of Wikipedia tweet about this!) Interestingly enough,
Kanye North (aka "Kanye East") doesn't have a full article of its own here (although maybe it should), even though
Kanye South (aka "Kanye West") does have one. Anyways, good targets for this could include: the current target (if edited to cite the report I found);
Kanye South; or
Kanye, Botswana#Government (where both constitutencies are mentioned). (An aside: as for the claim that The user who created the page also has a history of creating pages that get speedy deleted, and removing speedy deletion tags from other pages., the pages I created that did get speedied (such as
Booger King) were one-off bloopers, and the speedy deletion tags I've removed are grounded in my opinion that Wikipedians are overall too eager to slap speedy deletion tags on pages.)
Duckmather (
talk) 03:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlikely misspelling of "Catholic" not commonly found in the world, or in comparable redirects to any other of thousands of diocese with articles in Wikipedia.
BD2412T 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Re-target to
Alcoholic beverage. Alcohol (drug) is more about the medical aspects of alcohol, while Alcoholic beverage gives more information about the cultural aspects of it, with which the act of drinking alcohol itself it more associated.
Catalk to me! 06:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per the almost-identical point I made at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17#Soda drinking for the since-deleted redirect
Soda drinking almost a decade ago, amongst other issues: 1) The redirect is worded in a way that makes it seem like it leads to a guide about how to drink
alcohol, which it does not; 2) There is no guarantee that someone searching this phrase is intending to locate the article
Alcoholic beverage, considering
Alcohol is a disambiguation page. Readers could be intending to find issues pertaining to ingesting the subjects of the articles
Alcohol (chemistry) or
Alcohol (drug), neither of which are exclusive to the subject at
Alcoholic beverage, considering subjects such as
Rubbing alcohol exist; and 3) I also do not believe that retargeting this redirect directly to
Alcohol makes sense since the disambiguation page is not exclusively about subjects to related to "alcohol drinking". With all this being said, search results are probably the best for our readers, which can only be accomplished in a user-friendly fashion if this redirect is deleted.
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget. I'm actually with Ca and Konanen on this one-- the closest thing we have TO a "guide about how to drink alcohol" as per Steel, is the article we have on alcohol which is meant to be drunk, the history of imbibed alcohol, the various different types of alcohol that one can drink, what one can do while drinking alcohol, and what effects it can have on the human body. All of that can be found (or is linked to) on
Alcoholic beverage.As for There is no guarantee that someone searching this phrase is intending to locate the article
Alcoholic beverage, considering
Alcohol is a disambiguation page, I'd say that the word "drinking" in this redirect serves as a good enough disambiguator. Clearly, the one typing this into the search bar is A: looking for an article about alcohol, and B: looking for an article about alcohol that is meant to be drunk. I *seriously* doubt that
Rubbing alcohol is anywhere CLOSE to the primary topic here.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no such content at the target article. The "F-100 Eluminator" is a one-off show vehicle that is not and would not be covered at the target article nor at a related article.
Sable232 (
talk) 16:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentWWE Day 1 (2024) links to it in its lead sentence, could it be made into a broader article than a dab, or are the similarities too superficial?
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 23:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Could this refer to
es:Polo Democrático (Venezuela), a political party that merged into Un Nuevo Tiempo and is mentioned in the latter's Spanish article? That would mean the "2000" in the legislative election mentioned in the historical revision would be a typo for "2005", but I can't find any mention of "Pole", "Polo" or "PD" in either of the election articles. Given that "Pole" is a reasonable translation of "Polo" (the shortened form of Polo Democrático), the redirect seems plausible, but would need a mention to be added in the
Un Nuevo Tiempo article.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 23:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target does not disambiguate (or mention) "Shams ud Duha"
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentShams ud Duha is a variant spelling of the name, which is also sometimes also rendered as Shamsud Doha, or Shamsuddoha, including in biographies linked on that page.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:814B:EA3E:5ED7:3206 (
talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's as may be, and explains why
Shams ud Duha redirects there, but none of the entries on the name page are of that form.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 15:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was merely explaining why someone would create the redirect, though it is possible, even if unlikely, that a notable person who's name is usually rendered that way will be listed at some point in the future.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDE1:EF29:F8DF:334 (
talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Could be useful later but not right now.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If
Shams ud Duha is a valid redirect, then Shams ud Duha (disambiguation) is no different, since it points to a target performing a disambig-like function. Otherwise, bundle Shams ud Duha here, if the concern is with the u in Duha. Jay 💬 08:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ edits 05:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Indian films sometimes do this thing were they reshoot 10% or less of the film in another language. Either way, there is absolutely no need for this redirect when
Baak (film) exists. only 10% or less of people interest seeing
Aranmanai 4 will likely opt to see this version due to low key release.
DareshMohan (
talk) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is obviously linked with the Afd of
Baakghost. Here too, I suggest to Keep the redirect (and then rename. Baak (Telugu film) if needed, and maybe ask for page protection. Like that, history can be kept and further work on the article is easier. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Baak (film) without redirect as the title has incorrect capitalization which is arguably an RDAB error. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to
Baak (film) without redirect to keep editing history.
Hzh (
talk) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting together with the other similar RfD below. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Both of these redirects have no point. Both these redirects (
Baakghost and
Baak (Telugu film)) along with
Baak (Telugu Film) were initially created by
SenthilGugan as Articles for the Telugu dubbed version of
Aranmanai 4. After seeing no need for another article, when there's already a primary article and an
Afd the pages were turned to redirects. But, there is no need these many redirects, as not even the Google recognizes these names. I only included two redirects because, the other one has already been
Rfded.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Vestrian24Bio, what's the reason for nominating this redirect for deletion? I could be missing a potential problem with it; but, from what I can see, this title is mentioned at the target under
Aranmanai 4#Release. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am typing it; please wait for me to post it.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, sorry - I was confused as to why the redirect was nominated without a rationale, but that makes sense. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that the above !vote was made underneath the entry for
Baakghost, before the two nominations had been combined - see [8]. Best, —a smart kitten[
meow 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but make the target more precise to a section in the article:
Aranmanai_4#Theatrical The title in the target section of this Telugu version of the film IS Baak. The second R was Redirected after an Afd and the first BLARed as ATD, so that the pages history and credits could be kept, which is always good. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Then, in order to preserve history and credits for both, rename the second (but then the double redirect needs to be fixed) OR change target so that it redirects to the Assamese folklore page (which will preserve the history, only upon a different topic). A DISAMB page can also be considered. Thanks. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I’m concerned, yes, I think that’s a good solution. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My comments remain the same. Hopefully this is no longer a dispute. Kailash29792(talk) 03:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete for no mention at the target, and therefore confusing.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a former article that was
WP:BLARed in 2014 per
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The mention in the target article was removed in 2019 and it's no longer listed on the school district's website, because it
was renamed. A mention could be added back to the target article, and the school is mentioned at
Austin High School (Alabama). A different school of the same name is mentioned
Oregon Trail School District, but I don't know if that's enough to justify disambiguation. -
Eureka Lott 19:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The school is listed at the target article in the listing of middle schools. That's enough for the redirect.
4.37.252.50 (
talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Added the previous name mention at the target. Jay 💬 09:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on dabifying? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hyperstar
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: disambiguate and retarget
I don't object. It seems like I incorrectly assumed your article was spam. My apologies.
EdmHopLover1995 (
talk) 23:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I went ahead and restored the soft redirect, though I think this discussion should remain open since dabifying is also being considered as an option.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Eureka Lott: As
WP:PTM describes, some partial title matches do belong on disambiguation pages. I think title-subtitle is one of the more obvious cases for that.
jlwoodwa (
talk) 04:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose that could apply to
Unlabeled - The Demos. Are there other good candidates for a potential disambiguation page? -
Eureka Lott 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify per MikutoH's last comment, plausible search term with several relevant entries. A Wiktionary link could be present on the dab if necessary.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 18:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: per the several pages listed by MikutoH with the term "unlabeled" in them.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
While it is the only full page with this title, it is not necessarily the primary topic, and redirects to sections like
Sexual identity#Unlabeled sexuality might be as likely to be searched for, if not more likely.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 11:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I go for convert to disamb page, per Chaotic Enby's reasoning. I don't see an obvious primary topic here. —
AP 499D25(talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to Unlabeled - The Demos per Shhh as a WP:ATD. Second choice, Delete per Eureka as a recently created unneeded redirect to a wiktionary page of an adjective word. Jay 💬 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per !votes to that end above.
BD2412T 23:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate - Partial title matches are not forbidden or banned, and I think this particular case is appropriate for some.
Fieari (
talk) 07:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Valid {{R from alternate name}}. "Box 850" is a nickname for MI6. See, e.g.,
[9]: "The United Kingdom's Security Service, MI5, for example, is colloquially known as Box 500 after its official wartime address of PO Box 500 and similarly MI6, the UK's external intelligence agency, is colloquially known as Box 850."
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target. Phrase does seem to be primarily used about speed limits in the United States and may make sense in the article, but is confusing with the article as is.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If redirected to speed limit in general, would that be better? Thanks
WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (
talk) 01:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 If "speed limit" actually talks about the phrase or concept, sure. The point is to not confuse readers who don't know what the phrase means.
Rusalkii (
talk) 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete could refer to any standing order --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 05:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target. I think this is in fact her legal name, but
The Daily Star is the only source I can find that mentions it at all, and she's clearly not notable under it.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sourcing is limited to tabloid journalism, inadequate for
WP:BLPNAME purposes. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 22:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect is part of a BLP violation, as the creator added the poorly-sourced name to the target article just after creating the redirect. The supporting
WP:DAILYSTAR source for the addition was junk, and so the edit was reverted.
• Gene93k (
talk) 01:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Another married actress who did not take her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: It is not compulsory for an Indian woman to adopt her husband's surname. Kailash29792(talk) 03:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Another married actress who did not take her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Another married actress who did not take her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Another married actress who never took her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Another married actress who never took her husband's name after marriage. This redirect should not exist.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but they do. For example
this one from NDTV: In the letter, signed Rani Mukerji Chopra, the 38-year-old actress writes of her hopes and fears for her baby daughter, of the anxiety and the joy that motherhood brings.Keivan.fTalk 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
One passing instance of that name in over a decade of her marriage does not mean she's known by that name. But fine, this redirect can still be understandable because she's self-signed the letter. But for the other actresses, not so much.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a misspelling. I changed the redirect target because i believe that 'IRC +10414' is a misspelling of IRC -10414 and is the better redirect target so far. An article about this star likely will be never created due to notability issues.
InTheAstronomy32 (
talk) 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This was never an article, and it isn't mentioned at either target. No pageviews in the last month. I really don't see how this redirect is helpful. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject is not known by the name "Alia Bhatt Kapoor". A redirect such as this should not exist for married women who haven't changed/added their husband's name after marriage.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 18:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no strong feelings about this, but when it comes to redirects it doesn't matter what the person is commonly known as. This is not the article's title. As long as some sources refer to her as such the redirect can serve a valid purpose when it comes to looking for the subject. Examples include
this one which refers to the Newlywed Alia Bhatt Kapoor in the text. The name also yields
results on Google. In short,
redirects are cheap and they don't need to be 100% accurate; that's why we have ones such as
Jennifer Pitt. Keivan.fTalk 19:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The question isn't what they are "commonly" known as. We should not assume that a married women should take her husband's last name, and that extends to poorly researched sources that call her by that name simply because she's married. It's highly misogynistic, unless ya'll create the same redirects for Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt or Virat Kohli Sharma.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not for me to assume whether a woman or man has taken up her/his spouse's last name. When sources write something down we simply follow, and redirects are meant to ease the navigation process. Unfortunately, "Ranbir Kapoor Bhatt" doesn't yield any results anywhere, but "Alia Bhatt Kapoor" does and if someone decides to look that name up here after coming across it somewhere else, the redirect will take them to the actual article. Keivan.fTalk 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources can call an actor many things. In
this source, Kareena Kapoor Khan is called KKK, as do other sources such as
this and
this. Does that mean KKK should redirect to her article?
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course not, because obviously
Ku Klux Klan is the
primary topic. However, if the name they are using for the person is inherently unique, then I don't see why it can't serve a purpose as a redirect. Keivan.fTalk 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why does it have to be unique? KKK (actress) is unique enough for a redirect. All I'm saying is that there are many ways to call a celebrity, doesn't mean they should all be redirects, especially when it comes to giving women identities that's not theirs, which is exactly what's problematic in the case of "Alia Bhatt Kapoor".
Krimuk2.0 (
talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I could nominate this for CSD per
WP:X3 but the page history might be a bit too significant. It looks like a minor edit war happened where someone tried to create a page for something that already has a page. Delete as always.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 05:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above; the attempted article has nothing salvageable anyways.
Catalk to me! 14:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it was an article in total for less than a day and as noted it doesn't appear to have any content work keeping. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't be speedily deleted due to significant edit history, though I doubt the consensus would be any different here.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it was an article for several months in 2009/2010 but doesn't appear to contain any content not in
Moon of the Spider. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep to preserve edit history and attribution, due to its content being merged into the target. This is exactly why it is not eligible for speedy deletion.
Fieari (
talk) 23:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't be speedily deleted due to significant edit history, but it still falls under
WP:X3 so I am nominating this here.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it was an article for a few days in 2007 and doesn't appear to contain any content not in the target. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't be speedily deleted due to significant edit history, but it still falls under
WP:X3 so I am nominating this here.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Zealand not mentioned in article.
Rusalkii (
talk) 03:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the sort of redirect where one would assume there's some grand complex history that explains how the redirect for "LGBT Rights in Zealand" got redirected to a page about a different nation on the other side of the planet. Nnnnnope. It was just... created that way, and the target page at the time had zero mention of--waitthis isn't New ZealandKeep Oh OH OKAY THAT MAKES SENSE NOW.
Zealand is the name of the large island that makes up about half of the country of Denmark. While it's not directly mentioned in the article itself, it does repeatedly reference
Copenhagen, which... is on the island of Zealand.While it does possibly generate
WP:SURPRISE for anyone who decides to abbreviate New Zealand to simply Zealand (which is wrong but hey, until a few minutes ago I didn't know where 'old' Zealand was), a hatnote at the beginning of the current target article would suffice, such as:This is about
LGBT rights in
Denmark, the country that incorporates the island of
Zealand. For LGBT rights in
New Zealand, see
LGBT rights in New Zealand....which... huh. That's a red link. ...Could drive someone to make the article in question I suppose? Fixed link at 04:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepRedirects are cheap. Denmark is not a federal country, so there's no reason to assume that LGBT rights in Zealand differ from the rest of Denmark. I like Lunamann's suggestion for a hatnote. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, and if we go for a hatnote, should we also consider
Zeeland in the Netherlands (historically also spelled Zealand, and the namesake of New Zealand) as a possibility?
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Given it's only one letter off from "Zealand", and we're already adding a hatnote mention for something that's an entire word off ("New Zealand"), I would say that adding a For LGBT rights in
Zeeland, see
LGBT rights in the Netherlands. to the end of the hatnote, after "For {blank} see {blank}" for New Zealand, would be warranted.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having created
Wich (disambiguation), I doubt that there is a primary topic of the term, and propose to move the disambiguation page over this redirect.
BD2412T 00:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Judging by the relative unnotability compared to the common -wich suffix, the existing page being a redirect to
-wich town and keeping the existing hatnote on that page is fine. Just add a note at the top of wich (disambiguation) stating the primary topic.
Flemmish Nietzsche (
talk) 07:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The -wich suffix is still just a suffix, not the sort of thing someone would normally look for under the title without the leading hyphen.
BD2412T 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the new
Wich (disambiguation).
-wich can remain targeted at
-wich town, but that's because the hyphen matters a lot. Without the hyphen it's entirely plausible that the searcher is looking for something else, and that there is no primary topic. (With the hyphen it's less ambiguous, and there is definitely a primary target in that case)
Fieari (
talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per Fieari - without the hyphen, this should point to the (new) DAB page.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 02:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 02:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move as per nom. It's a bit silly imo for the primary page to be a redirect to a "Topic (disambiguation)" page. Instead of targeting
Wich to
Wich (disambiguation) as per Fieari and Walsh, instead move the contents of
Wich (disambiguation) to
Wich, leaving behind a redirect from the disambig page to the 'primary' page.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target.
Rusalkii (
talk) 02:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as implausible typo. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is not the National Association of Asian American Professionals.
mwwvconverse∫
edits 20:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I want to say delete, as what little content this page previously had is reflected in the current, separate articles, and the old references are broken links to the Nature website. However, I vaguely remember there being licensing reasons to keep old page histories for attribution. Retarget to
European Molecular Biology Organization#Conferences and journals may be the way to go if that's right. ―
Synpath 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing in that redirect's history that was ported over the other articles. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Taking another look, I see that now - striking retarget suggestion and delete. Thanks ―
Synpath 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The aspect ratio is not itself "HD", this is misleading and confusing. I'm not sure where this redirect should lead, maybe
High-definition television? Leaving that up to people with a better understanding of the area than me.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to 720p, as I'd say that would be the most precise target for "HD resolution", and HD resolution by itself most commonly refers to 720p / 1280x720, the first resolution considered "HD". I would probably also add a hatnote at the top of the article saying something like "HD resolution redirects here. For the broader topic, see
High-definition video." for if readers want to know more about other resolutions that are considered 'HD' / have 'HD' in the name. Otherwise, other ideas I have are
High-definition video (a broader topic than High-definition television), or convert to a disambiguation page that includes all three aforementioned topics. Note: I've also added the alternative capitalisation redirect
Hd resolution to the nomination. —
AP 499D25(talk) 13:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment though HD commonly refers to 1080i/1080p, and not 720, which is EDTV, enhanced definition, or 540p, standard definition --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DAB, nowadays this is used for 1080p resolution, but historically anything from 720p, 1080i, 1080p were all considered 'HD' resolution. Maybe other formats too, but those are very minor. Alternatively, a redirect to
High-definition television would also be fine. Maybe even
High-definition television#Display resolutions. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Tenerife not mentioned in target. No reason to believe it is different from the rest of Spain.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, for... exactly the reason you say to get rid of it, actually. If there's no reason to believe it's different from the rest of Spain, then someone looking for information on same-sex marriage in this city would be served well by being redirected to the article about the rest of Spain.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Lunamann. Doesn't have great pageviews but I see no harm. 〜Askarion✉ 12:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It does not help the reader to show that a page exists for Tenerife but have no information about it. Jay 💬 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Alad not mentioned in target, I can't see any reason why it should be called out or why someone would expect same-sex marriage in Aland to be governed by different rules than the rest of Finland.
Rusalkii (
talk) 21:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, for... exactly the reason you say to get rid of it, actually. If there's no reason to believe it's different from the rest of Finland, then someone looking for information on same-sex marriage in this city would be served well by being redirected to the article about the rest of Finland.Wow, deja vu.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It does not help the reader to show that a page exists for Aland but have no information about it. Jay 💬 13:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Gastrosexuality existed as its own page before, though the correct term is gastrosexual because it's named in reference to lifestyles like
lumbersexual,
spornosexual,
retrosexual, cosmosexual, frustrosexual, megasexual,
ubersexual, ultrasexual, macrosexual, cinesexual, machosexual, and many others. --
MikutoHtalk! 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Gastrosexuality? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Propose a disambiguation: While the episode was planned to be named "The Doctors," the redirect could potentially also mean any multi-Doctor episode due to its vague naming. I feel a disambiguation would clear up confusion with this redirect.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 02:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. @
Pokelego999: Which articles might otherwsie be called "The Doctors" (because a disambiguation page is a list of such articles)?
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 13:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment it could also be referring to all the regenerations of the main character in the franchise, instead of an episode/serial --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 05:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
The Doctor (Doctor Who), which lists multiple doctors, and has a section on episodes featuring multiple doctors.
BD2412T 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This isn't commonly referred to as "Boston incident"; searching the term finds little about the massacre compared to other incidents (such as the
2007 Boston Mooninite panic). In the cases where the massacre is referred to with this term, it's only in a descriptive fashion and not as an actual name. Redirect was created by a quickly-reverted
WP:POINTy page move in 2006.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete one would think the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Bunker Hill would be better --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - although it seems ambiguous (my first thought was the
Boston Marathon bombing) the article on the Boston Massacre notes in the lede that the event is also known as the "Incident on King Street"; "Boston incident" is a plausible misremembering. It's a more neutral title anyway, the article also notes in the lede that calling it a "massacre" was American patriot propaganda. As far as I can tell, the other events listed here aren't widely known as named "incidents". If deleted then don't disambiguate, search results would handle this better.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find a primary topic. GScholar results, for example, are split primarily between the current target and the
Boston Marathon bombing. When referring to the current target, they seem to be mainly quoting from primary sources. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems more specific to the massacre than the bombing.
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Pretty common for these types of redirects to exist and there's nothing stopping someone from starting an article.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Hey man im josh and the clear fact that this is a future rdr to a title with en-dash(es), like the
2023-24 FA Cup. By the way, the redlinked title the nominator brought up is to me what happens when info on this exist(s) at that/the time and is/are not documented here with sourcing. Just like the
2023–24 Ghana FA Cup,
2023–24 Samartex F.C. season and the
2024 Absa Cup articles which I'll create soon.
Intrisit (
talk) 19:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no information on the 2023–24 competition, so this is misleading and bound to disappoint readers. --
BDD (
talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the redirect is way too specific, and seems almost like a search engine query.
Gaismagorm (
talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Looks fair enough to me, since there have apparently been five Iranian nuclear scientists killed.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since @
Smasongarrison: commented in my talk page, ambisexual(ity) and bisexual(ity) are synonyms and it should be retargeted there, along with the others which are translations from Greek and Esperanto. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support in principle, but these should all be retargeted to bisexuality or an existing page, not a other redirects.
Mason (
talk) 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's what I meant. Retarget to
bisexuality. Also just listed ambisexual. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Muscle Shoals, Alabama is mentioned at target, but a battle there is not described. This does not seem to be a term in use. There is evidence for a skirmish at Mussel (sic) Shoals on October 30, 1864
1, but there is no content on enwiki about it and no evidence it is referred to as "Battle of Muscle Shoals". Delete to encourage article creation if notable and avoid confusion/astonishment.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 00:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
Intersex for consistency and as the more precise topic than Man/Woman, especially since there isn't an equivalent
Man#Intersex man anchor.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Just commenting to state that I did indeed decline the G4 tag, though that tag was valid. I did so because it's a 16 year old discussion with only a single participant other than the nominator. This discussion may very well end the same way, and that's fine if it does, but I thought this was worth discussing to see if there is consensus to uphold the old result or whether the perception of the usefulness of this redirect has changed.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Shhhnotsoloud. I oppose retargeting to
Vandalism on Wikipedia specifically because it's not a Wikipedia-specific term. Indeed, "semi-protection" as it's used on Wikipedia could be found on other sites, although admittedly the only one Google mentioned was its use on Wookiepedia of all places-- though I'll note that it's on a page talking about its use of the MediaWiki software, which *is* the software Wikipedia uses. I could also see someone using the term 'semi-protected' in other contexts, unrelated to both wiki sites and websites in general.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not specific to Wikipedia and can be applied to wikis or even other websites.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Cross-namespace, not a helpful search term for regular readers.
Air on White (
talk) 09:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. There's a good hatnote at the current target.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to dab as incomplete disambig; the dab itself lists two different songs that can be valid targets.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
... but I think "Careless Whisper" is the primary topic.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, that's where we'd differ-- I'd believe the primary target to be
Never Gonna Dance Again (Sugababes song), which is a song that actually has "Never Gonna Dance Again" as the title. Either way, retargeting to the dab seems like the least harmful option here.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I believe evidence for the fact that the current target is the
WP:PTOPIC is the fact that
Careless Whisper is an article on only the song, while the Sugababes song is a subsection of a page about an entire album. That alone shows a difference in the impact of the two songs, making one a better
WP:PTOPIC despite the lyric in question not being the title. (If consensus leans away from this, cast a secondary !vote towards the DAB over the Sugababes album.)
Fieari (
talk) 23:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per IP, Pppery, and Shhhnotsoloud. I oppose redirecting as per Crouch precisely because of his reason for deletion-- this is clearly not a Wikipedia-specific term (and is even LESS of one compared to 'semi-protection'), and thus it is ill-served by being redirected to a page exclusively about Wikipedia itself.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 20:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target. Most google results suggest this is first a kind of axe and only secondarily a (different) grass,
Microlaena stipoides. See e.g.
dictionary entryRusalkii (
talk) 03:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is now mentioned at the target. However, it is a Maori common name that has been recorded for 3 species of grasses
[10] as well as perennial grasses in general
[11]. Use as a general term for grasses takes this into
WP:FORRED territory.
Plantdrew (
talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target. May be appropriate to include since it does seem to be a center of the university, but unclear to me if it is due weight; no objections to keeping the redirect if the subject is added to the article.
Rusalkii (
talk) 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget - per nom.
Fieari (
talk) 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plausible soft redirect. The term "pomosexuality" isn't mentioned anywhere on EnWiki, so converting this into a "hard" redirect makes no sense, since there isn't any plausible target in my opinion. Better to leave as is.
CycloneYoristalk! 07:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget. Pomosexual is now mentioned in the proposed target: The term
pomosexual is also similar to unlabeled in the sense that it defines the rejection of preexisting or mainstream labels.voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disputed speedy deletion that I'm consquently taking here even though it clearly passes the
WP:SNOW test. This is a "surname to individual person with it" redirect, except that (a) it isn't even his actual surname, but instead the article was created at
Said Hamich despite the subject being more usually credited as
Said Hamich Benlarbi, such that every single article connected to the film he just dropped at Cannes a few days ago completely missed that an article existed until I found and moved it, and (b) he isn't even the sole or primary topic for "Hamich" anyway, because every single inbound link that's actually coming here is expecting a German village just outside Aachen that was bombed in World War II. So using this as a single-topic surname redirect isn't appropriate if he isn't the sole topic and the incoming links are all expecting the other one across the board.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep it is his surname as found in the sources used in the article, pyramidefilms and unifrance --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And the German town that is being expected by every single article that's actually linking here at all is supposed to just suck it up and live with linking to the wrong thing, I suppose?
Bearcat (
talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In fairness that could be easily addressed by simply piping the links to point at
Hamich (village), or similar. Won't be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic though.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (
talk) 14:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And why would the filmmaker get to claim primary topic? The existence of this redirect might be the reason why the village doesn't have an article yet, because it's a blue link in the articles that are looking for the German village so people haven't noticed that it's missing — so the moment we've identified that another topic with this name exists, "he's the only topic that currently has an article right now" is automatically an invalid criterion, and the only acceptable grounds for keeping this would be full-on evidence that even if the village did have an article the filmmaker would still get primary topic rights over the village anyway. So what are the grounds on which he would be primary topic for "Hamich"?
Bearcat (
talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the recency, I am inclined to doubt the existence of the redirect is why the village has no article but we can only speculate, an exercise that tends to be dissipative; piping the links resolves the concern in any case. The guideline is explicit that "Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic", so opinions may differ. And I was quite explicit that it would not "be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic" an assertion that your reply validates.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (
talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Piping the links doesn't resolve anything, because piping the links is an automatic banishment of the village to secondary topic status, and the fact that it's not a satisfactory solution is precisely the problem.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As
I said it resolves the concern that the existing redirect inhibits article creation, but not the seperate concern over the primary topic, which you have also raised. I have not examined that issue in detail, and have no intention of doing so, which is why thus far I have only left a comment here, though I suppose I could eventually get around to it if a clear consensus fails to develop.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6573:F24B:E2A6:BBEE (
talk) 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I challenged the speedy because this is an unambiguous
WP:NOTCSD explicitly covered by point 15 in fact.
Template:R from surnames are common and accepted, the issue appears to be whether or not this is functionally the primary target. If an article on the village existed a bold dabification would likely have gone unchallenged, but it doesn't, thus this discussion.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (
talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:REDLINK (and Voorts). I agree that the filmmaker is not likely to be the primary topic here, and we don't have an article on the primary topic, likely because the link is blue and interested parties are unaware the article is non-existent at this time. When the article exists, a hatnote can be used. Until then, the built-in search feature will suffice to assist anyone looking for the filmmaker.
Fieari (
talk) 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
While I was RfDing
astounding, I noticed this redirect. Maybe delete as too vague/confusing? (A lot of events could be called an "astounding incident", depending on your point of view, and we don't seem to have articles on either the concepts of astoundingness or incidents either.)
Duckmather (
talk) 20:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This isn't that vague. It is about an incident concerning Astounding Magazine, where in the target story Deadline was published in Astounding and resulted in an FBI investigation for leaking nuclear secrets during WWII. Perhaps reading the article could elucidate why it is called an "Astounding icident" and not an "astounding incident" --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The first letter of a given article is not case sensitive, because it's always expected to be capitalized as per
WP:LOWERCASE; thus, for all we knew, it WAS "astounding incident". If kept, refining to
Deadline#FBI investigation would be warranted, but because of the capitalization issue, my assertion as per vagueness holds.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, vague, as above. I did not find that "Astounding incident" is a common way to refer to the FBI investigation into the Deadline story. Incoming links and pageviews seem to agree. If it is, it's drowned out by this being a common phrase. ―
Synpath 04:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This redirect exists because the magazine was called Astounding Stories (and later Astounding Science Fiction) for thirty years. The magazine is frequently referred to in histories of sf magazines as just Astounding, and it's plausible that a reader of those histories would type in "astounding" if looking for the article on the magazine.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think "astounding" is a search term likely to be used in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) by someone who's never heard of the magazine, so I think it's possible it's the most likely target. But so long as there are hatnotes enabling someone to get to the magazine if they type this in, that's the main thing. I'm not sure
surprise (emotion) is a good choice, though; are we going to add that as a target to the existing dab pages
startling and
amazing? Those dabs link to magazines too: Startling Stories and Amazing Stories If there's a plausible other search term perhaps
astounding should just become a dab page like those.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 11:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The magazine appears to be the
WP:PTOPIC for the word. There are over 100 articles linking to the nominated redirect, and I think they all refer to the magazine. -
Eureka Lott 16:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft-redirect to
wikt:astonishing. The word "astonishing" is not merely a synonym for surprise (see the wikt page), and thus should not be redirected there. I support DABing since others have found potiential targets.
Catalk to me! 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Catalk to me! 01:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with
Turkish Bath (disambiguation).
Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of
steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at
Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see
here), a more fully-fledged
Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link.
Note: This came out of a discussion at
Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and
Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation.
R Prazeres (
talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for
Hammam or
Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.
Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.
On Wikipedia, we follow our own
policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is
WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a
primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic.
The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to
Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for
Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at
comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to
redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with
hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with
Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the
Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.
Reasons:
1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on
Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.[a]
(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;
(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)
In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
^For any newcomer to the discussion, 'Victorian Turkish baths' is not a subdivision of 'Hammam', Hammam being an Islamic steam bath and Victorian Turkish baths being Victorian (Roman-Irish) baths using hot dry air. Both are direct descendants of the Roman thermae.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A. The identification of a primary topic only seems to apply when there are synonyms for the terms used to name a specific subject, or for grammatical clarifications (see Reason 1 in my previous reply).
B. When there are two completely different and separate subjects, ie,
Hammam &
Victorian Turkish baths, there cannot be a "primary topic" simply because both are types of hot-air bath, any more than there can be a "primary topic" between
Apple &
Pear simply because both are types of fruit.
C. Wikipedia's object in the case of multiple subjects (see 2.c above) is to enable readers to speedily find the subject wanted, whichever one it is.
D. The current situation where a reader, perhaps the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus rather than an academic, seeks information on
Turkish baths and is willy-nilly diverted to an article on hammams—and so may never discover the existence of an article on Victorian Turkish baths—cannot be equitable, or helpful.
E. The solution suggested above by R Prazeres to retarget to
Turkish Bath (disambiguation) not only follows Wikipedia principles, but provides the speediest route to either of the two subjects sought. It should now be adopted as a win-win solution for both subjects, and will in practice lead readers to articles on subjects they may not previously have come across.
Ishpoloni (
talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target. Until some time back the target was
LATAM Airlines which was decided as the priamry topic at
this RfD 8 months back. The subject of Latin America didn't come up at the prior RfD, hence I figured this renomination is better than reverting the change by the IP who has also modified
LATAM (disambiguation) to make Latin America the primary topic. Revert or agree with the new primary topic? Jay 💬 19:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget back to
LATAM Airlines as the primary topic. No evidence the consensus from the previous RfD would have changed.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget back per Mdewman6. It does look like this is an accepted abbreviation for Latin America (especially in medicine), but the usage is too specialized for me to consider that the primary topic. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That was only added yesterday by the IP when they unilaterally changed the redirect.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect in draftspace created as a result of disruptive article creation by an IP user over an existing redirect, and NPP not reverting the disruptive edits, but instead draftifying their "work" (which consisted of a lazy, unreferenced stub). Suggest deletion. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
HistSplit or just override the redirect with the previous draft, noting attribution in the edit summary if more convenient. Too soon applies to articles, but drafts are fine. Should have been histsplit the first time as the existing redirect should not have been deleted, but we can remedy that now.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A165:7AFC:68F9:104D (
talk) 20:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move dab per Presidentman --
Lenticel(
talk) 11:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a redirect with history, so if the consensus is to move the disambiguation page, it probably should be moved away from the base title (maybe to something like
Severa (software)) instead of deleting it. -
Eureka Lott 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
How is it a primary topic? The name has been used for thousands of years, the company itself isn't even notable enough for it's own article.
★Trekker (
talk) 08:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Move or keep at the current title? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't find any use of this romanization in literature or on Google. Potentially ambiguous with
Yinyuan.
Game Is (presumably)
Wikipedian (
tea?) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment:Ingen has been referred to as Yinyuan.
This page says, "The year 2022 marks the 350th death anniversary of Zen Master Yinyuan Longqi (隱元隆琦 1592-1673, Ingen Ryūki in Japanese)."
This article says, "Ingen Ryūki (Chinese, Yinyuan Longqi; 1592–1673), although unknown from Chinese sources, was ..."
The page should not be deleted. I am fine with either keeping the page as is or retargeting the page to
Yinyuan which already has a hatnote to
Yinyuan Longqi, which redirects to
Ingen.
Cunard (
talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
65.92.244.237 (
talk·contribs)! I support your proposal to create a disambiguation page with the first draft as well as to create the second draft.
Cunard (
talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're welcome to accept and move the drafts into articlespace. --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you. As there is an open RfD, moving the drafts into mainspace could be controversial. I hope there is a consensus to do the move so that the RfD closer does this. Otherwise, I plan to do this myself at the close of the RfD.
Cunard (
talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yinyuan is the common romanization of the Chinese 隱元, but the romanization with a dash in particular is what doesn't seem used at all. Is this otherwise a common way of romanizing Chinese names? Separating their characters with dashes?
Game Is (presumably)
Wikipedian (
tea?) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
When using a
Wade–Giles romanization, a hyphen should used between the syllables of a two-character given name, with the second syllable uncapitalised (unless a different form is clearly preferred): write Lee Teng-hui, not Lee Teng-Hui. Hong Kong names should also generally use the hyphenated style.
However, Yinyuan is a
Pinyin romanization, not a
Wade–Giles romanization. I think it should be fine to redirect a hyphenated version of the name to a "Yin Yuan" disambiguation page for being a plausible search term.
Cunard (
talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware of Wade-Giles romanization. Support RetargetGame Is (presumably)
Wikipedian (
tea?) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the "Yin Yuan" DAB page after publishing to mainspace.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I read somewhere "yuan" is the neutral/third form of
yin-yang, but I guess that would be
wuji and it was probably an
invention. --
MikutoHtalk! 00:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
implausible
RLOTE created as an article in Dutch in 2017 and redirected 6 minutes later, barely has any pageviews (113 over 7 years is essentially bot and
Special:WhatLinksHere noise). should be retargeted to
aromanticism if not deleted. –
dudhhrtalkcontribssheher 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No particular connection between Dutch and aromanticism which would justify this.
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 08:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:RLANG, as per above-- this is simply the Dutch word for Aromantic. (Admittedly there's no difference between RLANG and RLOTE, they redirect to the same article; I just prefer RLANG as a redirect and see it more often than RLOTE.)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Pointless redirect that helps nobody. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 16:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Too specific a target for a general concept. Not really a notable topic on its own and too vague to make a good search term, so deletion is likely best.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 01:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Repeated game, the game theory framework for consecutive repetitions of a game, a more plausible and much less specific topic.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 11:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that makes sense as a target. The word "consecutive" is not found at the target, and we don't have the singular
consecutive game. The plural form is usually used in the context of sports, it's just that there is no good target in that context for such a broad/vague term.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 19:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Iron man (sports streak). That article describes athletes who have played a lot of consecutive games. I can't think of a better redirect target and this seems like a valid search term.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Iron man (sports streak) - I've read the article, and it covers all sports and is directly about the topic of this redirect. It's a good target, and exactly what someone would be looking for when searching this.
Fieari (
talk) 23:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The name of Yuno Miles being "Ron(ald) Johnson" was sourced to
WP:GENIUS (see this diff), which is
WP:GUNREL, particularly for a
WP:BLP. I could not find any other sources that indicate that Miles' name is actually "Ron(ald) Johnson", nor do any of the sources mentioned in the
ongoing AfD for Yuno Miles contain that name.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's even worse-- Not even Genius itself supports this redirect (see
here and
here), referring to Ron Johnson not as a name for Yuno Miles, but as a writer for Yuno Miles-- as in, an entirely different person who's worked with him in the past. It's like saying that
Britney Spears's real name is
Max Martin. These redirects are
Certified Trash.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Lunamann and nom.
Fieari (
talk) 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'll note, they are in many occasions, such as
[12][13][14], none of which use the "summer" qualifier but do refer to the 2024 as Games. These aren't the Winter Olympics. There's the colloquial Olympics, and the Winter Olympics. The word "summer" is often dropped on most occasions when discussing the Olympics that take place in the summer, so I wouldn't consider the winter games to be on the same level.
2008 Games and
1992 Games are current redirects to their respective Olympics and have existed since 2007 and 2006, respectively. This is in conjunction with similar titles such as
2006 Winter Games and/or
2014 Winter Games as expected. These were created through AfC so I don't have a strong attachment, but if you have any alternate titles that have a higher significant usage of "2020 Games" that could be useful to note. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
disambiguate, or retarget to
2020 in video games, since it ignores the winter olympics and those other things people refer to almost exclusively as "games"
would suggest "2020 summer games", but that also seems to refer mostly to games released in the summer of 2020 cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think this is a useful redirect, and I don't think it would be a useful dab page either. If you search for "2020 games", ignoring this redirect, you'll get results that take you to the likely spots mentioned in this discussion. --
asilvering (
talk) 04:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopened upon request for additional consideration of the arguments above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Utopes, the Summer Olympics are commonly the Games, and are referred to as, say, "Games of the XXXII Olympiads". The capitalization makes it clear that this is not about, say, video games, but one specific event.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, already multiple
WP:XY candidates found, and too vague for a disamb page.
Catalk to me! 14:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Chaotic. Games in uppercase refers unambiguously to the Olympics when preceded by a year when the Summer Olympics were held. I have no opinion on why only the 1992 and 2008 redirects exist for a 130-year old event. I am not convinced by Utopes' references though. In the context of the Olympics, the "Games" is obviously used as a synonym, but I don't see these redirects as a general synonym but as useful terms, which may also be used for piping. I don't see benefit in deletion, and no need for disambiguation. Jay 💬 17:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Probably delete per nom.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think keeping these are necessary, but if kept, I think the best target would be
Somali Civil War#TFG, Islamic Courts Union, and Ethiopia (2006–2009). Sections below that one continue through present should someone be seeking more recent events. That said, the more recent events don't document any Islamist insurgencies. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - may have been useful as a search term years ago, but isn't any longer. No incoming mainspace links. -
Elmer Clark (
talk) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Also bundle the uppercase P version
Islamic Insurgency in Somalia (2007-Present). To solve the page history problem, move without redirect to a title that does not have "present" in it. Jay 💬 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Bundled with the uppercase redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team
Redirect should be deleted so editors know which seasons still need to be made, otherwise every season would be a redirect.
poketape (
talk) 21:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no indication that the abbreviation UA is used in any context for Uttarakhand. There is a vehicle code column in the table at
States and union territories of India where UK is used for Uttarakhand, but no UA.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A 17-year out-of-date vehicle code seems an unlikely search term to merit a redirect from "UA (India)" to Uttarakhand.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It still appears on vehicles in the state, and is also used by the state government in communications (e.g.:
https://uaresults.nic.in/; main contact adresses still operating at "ua@nic.in", ua.nic.in) among others. Do not see why it would not be a likely search term.
Gotitbro (
talk) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 11:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep per
Gotitbro. This is listed on the disambiguation page,
UA, and I see nothing else on that page that would specifically refer to India.
BD2412T 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain. The CCWS was the successor via bankruptcy of CART. In fact, the "Champ Car World Series" name was used by CART as the name of the series it sanctioned for the
last season before the bankruptcy filing by CART, purchase of its assets by a group of team owners and reorganization under the CCWS name. The first question is was the split of the article (it used to be one article at
Champ Car before the separate CCWS article was split out and the other article moved to the CART name) really necessary? I'd lean yes because it's a logical point for a break under summary style, not necessarily because of the legal structures (there was much more continuity than break in operations).
So the question then becomes which article is the best target for the "Champ Car" redirect (the redirects here are just alternate spellings and should point to the same place). Well, "Champ Car" was the common short name of the CCWS organization and likely primary meaning of the term. The general category of American open-wheel racing is most commonly known as
IndyCar, but CART couldn't use that anymore after the
Indy Racing League split (CART did use the name before, calling their series the IndyCar World Series prior to 1996) so they went with the more obscure Champ Car term after the split, but it didn't become part of the organization's name until the reorganization. As long as Champ Car redirects to the CCWS article, we should be consistent with spelling variations.
oknazevad (
talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Does Wikipedia need the unused redirects? At what point do the spelling variations simply become misspellings?
Champ car,
Champ Car,
Champ cars, and
Champ Cars already exist as redirects, in addition to a plethora of others.
But my point is that there is no obvious destination for the redirects I originally listed. They are grammatically incorrect, and could be taken by an editor to mean either a type of car, OR the sanctioning body. Using a small 'c' for car, they should probably direct to the
AOWR page, but as one 'word' they are simply incorrect spellings, and I am questioning why they need to exist.
RegalZ8790 (
talk) 00:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
ChampCar and
ChampCars also exist. Probably because IndyCar is properly written as one word prior editors assumed Champ Car was as well.
WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, so there's no particular harm in having the non-CamelCase versions kept as well.
oknazevad (
talk) 20:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The harm is that the redirects I have placed for discussion facilitate sloppy, ambiguous writing.
RegalZ8790 (
talk) 04:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom due to ambiguous term.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural, not properly tagged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate aside from the cars that raced in the post CART/IRL split, and the series that they raced in, there is also the synonym with any sort of indycar, and any rear-engined open-wheeled open-cockpit single-seater. Thus there are enough terms. Disambiguate at
champ car --
65.92.244.237 (
talk) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
John Campbell died of facial cancer according to the article on him. So "face cancer" or "facial cancer" is not limited to Tasmanian devils.
Alfa-ketosav (
talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Head and neck cancer. Seems to be the closest target for this term although I usually get
skin cancer among the top hits in my Google search. I'm also fine with deletion if we cannot find an agreement with each other. --
Lenticel(
talk) 05:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate between the different cancers (in both humans and Tasmanian devils) that have been referred to as "face cancer" or "facial cancer".
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 12:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm quite skeptical one that stuff since it does make some sense but barely anyone really does it.
Okmrman (
talk) 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"0" and "Zero" could be searched either way. Unless someone actually sees the logo of them they are unlikely to know which uses which term and even still they may assume we always use numbers or letters. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Appears to be a speculative term for a future star population, but couldn't find any published research on it. "Population 0" was mentioned
once as a synonym for Population III stars, but this could stem from a misreading of
this paper calling them "Zero-population stars".
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 19:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak disambiguate per
Crouch's findings (and also maybe this is gallows humor but the first thing I thought of was
Extinction or especially
Human extinction, so that should be added as well).
Duckmather (
talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate - There are enough potential targets that a DAB would be worthwhile. I don't find this an implausible search string either.
Fieari (
talk) 05:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Population Zero. It looks like the film is the clear primary topic here. I'm not finding evidence that this term is actually used to refer to extinctions of any kind, human or otherwise. A hatnote could be added for
Aftermath: Population Zero if desired. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like
corviknight and
the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to
missingno without a second or first thought cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
MissingNo. due to the unique bird type trait. Bird type doesn't equal flying type so it's not vague per se. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Among Pokémon fans, this term is typically used to refer to the likes of
Pidgey and
Spearow, being weak Normal-Flying birds found early in the game. A redirect to MissingNo. would be too confusing, and this term doesn't have a good single Pokémon to send it to.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not unlikely for people who heard of the missing type to search it. Hence, retargetting to relevant information at
MissingNo.#Characteristics would be helpful.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
my opinion, after several minutes of questioning unrelated things like how hattrem can knock boxers out with punches when it has as much attack as
an acorn and less than
a mug, is that "bird pokémon" either doesn't narrow things down in the slightest or narrows it down to exactly one pokémon which has an unused type game freak forgot to completely remove. so i'm even more confused, and recommend deleting so i never have to think about it again :D cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm also fine with deletion if we find the redirects too vague. --
Lenticel(
talk) 23:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Leaning towards delete. Why isn't Ho-Oh or Lugia considered a bird Pokemon? Seems ambiguous to me.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to MISSINGNO. -- the other pokemon aren't "bird" type, they're "flying". @
Hey man im josh: Since this is one of few times anybody on Wikipedia gives a crap about my vast knowledge of the subject I will indulge you: MISSINGNO. is famously the only "bird" type because it's a glitch that exposed certain pieces of pre-release dummy code to the player, including a "bird" type subsequently unused in the following 30 years of games. The way MISSINGNO. works, you ask? Oh I'd love to explain...
Interesting, thanks for the explanation @
JPxG. Believe me, I remember MISSINGNO and the sixth item slot! I'm neutral on this now, kinda leaning to support retargeting.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Listify - It seems that sources have discussed the group of pokemon that look like birds, even if they don't have an official "bird type" in-game/in-universe, so that would qualify for
WP:NLIST.
Fieari (
talk) 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Though MissingNo is the only bird-type pokemon, plenty of other pokemon are described as bird pokemon: indeed we use the phrase in eight of our nine lists of pokemon by generation. While "bird-type pokemon" arguably unambiguously refers to MissingNo (though I suspect it is just as likely to be intended as a synonym for "flying-type pokemon"), "bird pokemon" could also refer to Pidgeotto/Pidgeot (categorised as "bird pokemon" in their pokedex entries), all of the pokemon whose pokedex category is some modifier of "bird pokemon" (e.g. Pidgey and Spearow, among others, are "tiny bird pokemon"), all of the pokemon which are flying type, or all the pokemon which are inspired by or resemble real-life birds (which would exclude e.g. Zubat and Golbat, as bats, and Butterfree, as an insect, but include Psyduck). There's no point disambiguating, because none of these possible meanings have articles and I don't think they should have articles, but of the existing possibilities none are really satisfactory. If keeping, we could refine the existing target to
Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon types, where flying type is at least listed, but I'm leaning delete.
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
painfully pedantic note: missingno. is not actually the only bird-type (even then, there are multiple missingno.). it is the only bird-type with an entry in a list of pokémon and an article here though, because reliable sources don't seem to care about 'm or ????? (fc) (the latter only being bird/normal in the japanese versions of gsc) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to MissingNo or delete, but listifying would give us a pretty arbitrary list, and not even an especially relevant one among all the characteristics you can list Pokémon by.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 11:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget with Hatnote. While MissingNo's bird typing is pedantically correct, the several other options available for targeting (Flying-type Pokemon,
Legendary Bird Trio, et cetera) mean that this is quite clearly a
WP:XY situation, and I do think that simply retargeting to MissingNo itself with zero mention of other options would generate a sizeable amount of
WP:SURPRISE-- say little ten-year-old Timmy just caught a Pikipek and wants to know about other "Pokemon that look like birds", so he searches Bird Pokemon and runs right into a glitch he's never seen before. While a List or Dab would be a decent idea-- heck,
that's how Bulbapedia solved this issue-- I myself think that simply adding a hatnote to one target would solve the issue fairly decently, given the small number of potential targets. Given MissingNo is the only one that has its own article, it really is the only one that has room for such a hatnote, and therefore we should add the hatnote-- and target-- there. I'll also note, for the record, that we have quite clearly reached
WP:BARTENDER-- while there's debate on where exactly to go, I don't think anyone at all has argued for keeping things the way they are, with most people that disagree with simply retargeting to MissingNo instead advocating for dabification.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 16:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the
deletion discussion and
WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. -
Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The
AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –
Davey2010Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see
Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached.
Aircorn(talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Pretty much per Aircorn - the "add mention" proposal is akin to
WP:BACKWARDS in addition to nobody apparently being willing to push the button.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Aircorn and Pppery. Unless someone actually thinks that content about Odiogo should be added to
History of Podcasting and actually adds something which would make this redirect worthwhile, there's no point keeping it.
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: it's a page about a meme (memes are frequently notable, or later become so) and it redirects to what the context is.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
keep although usually if you search it in english Wikipedia it showed wikiquote
Baratiiman (
talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is a direct quote and it seems plausible someone might search for it.
CMD (
talk) 07:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete unless sourced and
WP:DUE information can be added at a target. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Best cite that I got was it
exists with address at the former
Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - a redirect from a radio callsign to relevant information like where it broadcast[s|ed] from is useful, like if you saw it on an old navigation chart or something. It's not very useful but it's also harmless.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per
Ivanvector. This is the
only source I found about the station's ownership. Though, I don't know which part of the article this piece of info can fit. Nonetheless, a redirect is deemed
harmless. ASTIG😎🙃 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep per Ivanvector. Although it is not mentioned, it gives information about where it broadcasts from.
Queen of Hearts (
talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's not appropriate to mention it at the target (for reasons Lenticel and others said) then why is it appropriate to subtly hint that it is in some vague way related without explaining how and leaving people confused. That's just mentioning it by the back door.
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are
WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Harley Quinn (pornographic actor)
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: no consensus
Brain rot does not seem to be a common synonym for Alzheimer's disease. Most sources use the term to refer to internet content that reduces its consumer's mental faculties, like attention span. Even if brain rot is taken literally, that term would span much farther than just Alzheimer's.
Based5290 (
talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: FYI
Brainrot also redirects to
Alzheimer's disease. I can't see any evidence of the literal term brain "rot" ever being used in the context of Alzheimer's. See
this journal which explains it. I think the redirect should be deleted but a new article about the more modern term could probably be written.
Clearfrienda💬 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I see two possible solutions to this.
A "Did you mean?" ("Not to be confused with...") text box at the top of a new "Brain rot" (as used in modern internet culture) linking to the page for Alzheimer's disease.
Alternatively, we could redirect either Brain rot or Brainrot to the other, and make that one a disambiguation page that would contain both a "Brain rot (internet slang" page and "Alzheimer's disease" on bullet points.
RichardMcKee (
talk) 18:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Brain rot is a term that casually refers to, quoting wiktionary, "The degradation of mental faculties, intelligence, common sense, or moral character." It does not refer to the literal rotting of the brain in a physical sense such as how meat rots if not refrigerated. Google shows a recent trend towards using this term to specifically refer to "brain fog or lethargy resulting in too much screen time", but the term brain rot has been in use for well over a century... prominently, for example, it was used to describe the effect of reading comic books. Given the meaning of the phrase, I can understand why someone would create the redirect, but it definitely isn't the best target... I feel like
moral panic is actually a better target than Alzheimer's, given how the term is actually used, but I'm expressly NOT saying we SHOULD retarget to moral panic since we don't actually discuss the term there (although I would not object to it being added there and THEN retargetting). I'm unsure where this could be best retargetted to, and if pressed, I'd lean towards either a crosswiki redirect to wiktionary or delete it outright, but again, I'm unsure, so I'll leave it as a comment for now. I expressly do !vote against the status quo however.
Fieari (
talk) 01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect per above. This seems to be a more generic term than specifically
Alzheimer's disease, but I'm not sure what there is to say (apart from a dictdef) in an encyclopedic context.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 02:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
See Wiktionary for three common uses. Maybe four if my research pans out. All the best: RichFarmbrough 16:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC).reply
lately, the term has been used as something along the lines of "internalizing behavior or vocabulary from media due to hyperfixation (or whatever else)"
like accidentally telling your boss that you getting fired is
"not optimal for any%", or reenacting entire monologues from
ultrakill over the word "visitor"
still, i don't think that's covered by sources yet, so i'd say delete for now, or soft redirect if you think the entry on wiktionary is good enough (i'd say definition 3 is still a little undercooked, but eh) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think a disambiguation page containing both "Alzheimer's disease" and "Gen Alpha#Humor" would be a good solution to appease both "sides".
RichardMcKee (
talk) 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wiktionary per above, but mark as {{R with possibilities}} as I think the internet concept could be a notable topic on its own. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 07:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I use EMR
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
don't see why they should have different targets. inclined to retarget the former to nostalgia critic cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
no, wait a minute
i was looking at the wrong article
disregard previous prompt, retarget the latter to
doug walker (masayoshi shido lookalike) as it's not mentioned in the nostalgia critic article (and as the reception section it supposedly anchors to no longer exists)
Retarget 2nd to
Doug Walker (comedian)#Discography - It seems the "Reception" section of the Nostalgia Critic page has been removed, which presumably had information on the Wall previously but does not now. The only information we really have on it is now at Doug Walker's page under discography. A pity, because Dan Olson's brutal takedown of said work was legendary and would have made for a great critcal response section, but I guess it didn't get mainstream coverage the way his takedown of NFTs did, so it isn't considered a
WP:RS. But I digress. Incidentally, Cogson, could you format your RfD entries to be a little more readible in the future? I passed this one by earlier because I couldn't easily figure out what you were talking about at first (especially with random line breaks and a joke pipe).
Fieari (
talk) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
it's cogsan
for the situation where you couldn't figure out what i said, was it brain rot a few entries above, or the entire evil mario discussion a few days ago? because i feel i might have been kind of unclear on both at the end cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A good place to check for these kinds of things is OCLC. All the best: RichFarmbrough 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Delete as confusing, since there's no evident connection between the redirect and its target, and we don't even know if both are the same person.
CycloneYoristalk! 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I do not know any Arabic nor Arabic naming conventions, but the two names might refer to the same person. Encyclopædia Iranica lists him as EBN SAHLĀN SĀVAJĪ, Qāżī ZAYN-AL-DĪN ʿOMAR. The two names identify the same father and have similar first names (Omar and ʿUmar).
Catalk to me! 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Potassium heptafluoroniobate
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: withdrawn due to conversion to its own viable article.
Template:Edit-Protected
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: withdrawn
Mohamed ben Issa
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Closed by nominator
The set index is not a disambiguation. I can only find
Dougie as a dance, and
Dougie (given name), but I can't find the 3rd. If you can't find the 3rd one, will this page be deleted or kept?
176.42.17.150 (
talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Dougie from Bluey" absolutely would not "count as third", since he, if even worth mentioning at all, would also come under
Dougie (given name) (specifically "fictional characters with the name"). Unless you're attempting to put forth a case that he is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Dougie" as a given name? If so, I highly doubt this, given he's a one-shot character from a show aimed at five year olds. In fact, I don't even think he's especially worth a mention even on
Dougie (given name), let alone be given his own special separate entry as if he's the most famous "Dougie", real or fictional, to even exist.
StrexcorpEmployee (
talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. If there's enough content to create a disambiguation page, that's certainly fine. If not, the redirect should be kept because the target provides a disambiguation-like function. -
Eureka Lott 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We do point them at pages that "serve a disambiguation-like function" though, which anthroponymy pages do. Oops, I thought I removed this comment before saving — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ivanvector (
talk •
contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Restore the separate disambiguation page at
Dougie (disambiguation). It's the best solution out of no particularly good solutions.
BD2412T 17:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Eureka Lott. If
Dougie is the only title needing disambiguation that is not a person or character's name, which seems to be the case, it's silly to have nearly-identical disambiguation and anthroponymy pages that only differ by that one link. Just add a hatnote or see-also to the existing list.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Should be treated as an average redirect from incorrect disambiguation. The correct disambiguator in the title "Dougie (given name)" is "given name", and the disambiguator "disambiguation" is incorrect. No need to add an irrelevant see also link or hatnote to the anthro list. Someone who is at "Foo (given name)" doesn't need to be directed to "Foo" that is not name-related (not a "
related or comparable" topic).—
Alalch E. 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We actually need this to exist because there's a broken piece of software, which is used by a lot of people who disambiguate, that thinks links to "Dougie (given name)" need to be disambiguated, so they can at least pipe link this to avoid the software bug. --
Joy (
talk) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore disambiguation page per
BD2412 and because ... since
Dougie exists, claiming that a page about a given name is the de facto disambiguation page is erroneous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or restore dab? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't delete. In addition to what's already been said, redirects that end in (disambiguation) which target a page performing a disambiguation-like function (rather than a disambiguation page) are also helpful for linking to Wikidata items. To use this redirect as an example, the French and Italian Wikipedias have a disambiguation page for the term Dougie, which are both linked to
Dougie (Q13364643): Wikimedia disambiguation page. However, as
Dougie (given name) is an article about the name & isn't a dab page, it's linked to the Wikidata item about the name itself (
Dougie (Q3037978): male given name). Redirects such as
Dougie (disambiguation) are able to be connected to the Wikidata item about the disambiguation page as a
sitelink to redirect (as I've
just done); and therefore allow readers of the French and Italian Wikipedias to access the enwiki article (that serves a disambiguation-like function) via an interlanguage link. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist, since there's some momentum away from keep despite the initial lead in numbers. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Kion may also refer to the one from
The Lion Guard. So, retarget to
KION and add the character to this disambiguation.
176.42.18.33 (
talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The character, Kion, should be added to
KION regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
BD2412T 14:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move
KION to
Kion; I have added senses to the disambiguation page.
BD2412T 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move per BD2412; I am not convinced the Lion King character is primary, but the TV station is not (for the mixed-caps title).
Walsh90210 (
talk) 02:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Kion has a pre-redirect page history from 2015. Move without redirect to
Kion (character) which was created by
Hey man im josh 5 days back, probably as a result of this RfD or the changes made by BD2412 at the disambig page. KION may then be moved to Kion per others. Jay 💬 10:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I created the redirect based on a request at
WP:AFC/R. I have no issue with the redirect being overwritten.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This was flagged up at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by
user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed".
At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor
Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (
Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page. The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by
Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was
removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been
removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by
Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the
Pretext article.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirect made at least some sense at the time it was created. The article
Pretext, as it appeared at the time, was about the general well-understood meaning of a "pretext"; a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. It had only a single paragraph describing the social engineering trick.
Meanwhile, the article
Social engineering (security), as it appeared at the time, in the section
Pretexting, said "Pretexting..., also known in the UK as blagging". So that made at least some sense as a target (although even then, I think the video game article would have been a more appropriate target).
The video game seems pretty clearly to be the primary use for "Blagger"; if the "blagging" text is re-added to the Social engineering (security) article (as it probably should, there seems to be sufficient documentation of that, e.g.,
[15] at the
BBC), it can be dealt with by ordinary disambiguation (hatnote or a
Blagger (disambiguation) page, as appropriate).
TJRC (
talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The page mover / redirect creator Zxcvbnm was notified in the nomination, however I have just notified at the talk page as well. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate "Blagging" is another term for social engineering (see
here and
here). If that isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated between
social engineering (security) and the game, not have the game moved back here. That would be the height of folly when it could simply be re-added with a single sentence referenced to a reliable source.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Telephonics Corporation is no longer owned by Griffon Corporation. If Telephonics is not sufficiently notable for its own article, the redirect should be deleted.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Telephonics Corporation has a section at the target article (
Griffon Corporation#Telephonics Corporation), which includes a mention of its sale. I'm unsure why this redirect needs to be deleted - even though the company seems to have been sold, this section of the Griffon Corporation article still seems to contain the most information on the company that Wikipedia currently has, and so - in the absence of an article on Telephonics Corporation - seems to be the best target to send readers looking for information on it to. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 11:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just created it but I'm not sure if it's the best idea. I based it on
Pan-American Spanish, but English language has no specific article for all the Americas. Or does it have under another name? --
MikutoHtalk! 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, cannot find use as one subject, usually "Pan-American" "English school", nothing about a grouping of varieties.
Caribbean English is even considered separate, so the article is purely on the US and Canada. So the redirect not necessary nor representative of the article. I cannot find any wider article, under
Category:English language in the Americas, possibly one could be made, so a redirect made then. DankJae 20:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete -
South American English redirects to a list of English variations for individual countries in the Caribbean, Central, and South America, and it doesn't look like these have much in common with what is described in the
North American English article, nor are they discussed together as a group. I note
Pan-American French redirects to
American French with a list of French speaking locations from the United States, Canada, and Haiti. I'm leaning towards the idea of deleting
Pan-American French and
Pan-American English both, as they don't discuss north, central, and south Americas (Pan-America) together... and as such is kinda falsely claiming we have information on a subject that we don't. Weak !vote because I'm not sure this one is really harmful.
Fieari (
talk) 05:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target doesn't tell me what "Desi" means in the context of
Tibet. Is there a better target, or should we delete it if there's no substantive information?
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The most substantive information I can find is at
Dalai Lama, where the term is used several times and briefly defined once as "regent" or "viceroy." I am not sure that would be a suitable target, however, since the discussion is so brief. It might be better to leave as a redlink or perhaps find a more suitable article where a substantive mention could be added (maybe
Ganden Phodrang?). -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Several of the rulers or regents listed at
List of rulers of Tibet used the title desi, most notably
Changchub Gyaltsen,
Sangye Gyatso, and
Shatra Wangchuk Gyalpo, but I'm not aware of an exhaustive list. Wikipedia does have an article on the slightly more specific title
Druk Desi ("dragon viceroy") formerly used in Bhutan. Maybe we should make one of the redirects into a disambiguation page linking to those notable individuals and
Druk Desi?—
Greg Pandatshang (
talk) 00:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is a disambiguation page feasible? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, several operators sharing the same mathematical notation. Ideally, redirect it to a section of the recently made
Dbar disambiguation above.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The target page for this redirect is about another person. Same applies to
Mahmoud Saleh Hisham, which also redirects to the same target page.
Ben5218 (
talk) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Google says that this term is strongly related to/correlated with the
Ogg file format... top result says that oggcast is an RSS equivelent for ogg-format podcasts specifically, while other sources state that it is a streaming protocol for ogg format audio (of any sort). I suppose the google top result is why this redirect was created. I wonder if this term is notable enough to get a brief mention on the
ogg page, and then we could redirect there... but I'm not sure, so I'll refrain from !voting at the moment.
Fieari (
talk) 05:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 08:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dan Bloch: can comment further. While the removal mentioned in the nomination said ..no longer notable. The only third party source is from the Internet Archive., just one day prior,
DanBloch had reduced the multi-sourced 3-4 paragraph section to a single liner (alongwith removing sections such as Political podcast and Podguide). Jay 💬 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what sort of comment you're looking for from me. Per the nom, oggcast is no longer mentioned in the article (nor should it be, per
WP:BALASP), so this isn't a great redirect. Redirecting to
Ogg would probably be better, especially if someone added a mention there. But mostly it doesn't matter because
no one uses it. As far as I'm concerned either solution is fine, or even leaving it is fine.
Dan Bloch (
talk) 20:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What I was looking for was comments or explanation regarding the removal I mentioned, of 11,446 bytes where the edit summary only said Variants: cleanup. From your response I now see that you removed it as per WP:BALASP. Jay 💬 11:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like
Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're
WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be)
Fieari (
talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects.
Trailblazer101 (
talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions.
Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't).
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These redirects are not typos for the benefit of people already on Wikipedia, but people navigating to Wikipedia from external sites. Many sites most prominently Reddit, have an issue where the trailing parenthesis is cut off in URLs without some HTML wizardry. The site "forces" users to make these "typos" when you just copy the link sometimes. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are
WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "
Perfect is the enemy of good" problem.
Tantek (
talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All links are updateable, through either direct editing, or replacement if locked. The notice that appears on every page saying "did you mean to close your parentheses" would not discourage readers from reaching their destination being just a click away, and encourages the phasing-out of any erroneous links. "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not seem to be accurate when we aren't dealing with an out-of-reach concept of totality; there's no 80-20 about it. This the entire set of titles that are out of alignment with redirect fundamentals, and the problem can be solved with just this RfD. The lack of these redirects will not prevent anyone beyond finding it gone a single time, and immediately finding a new solution in seconds, whether it comes from adding a parentheses to their search term or url, or adding it to the link itself if handy, or generating one's own link. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child)OrewaTel (
talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions.
CycloneYoristalk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).
b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)
Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) -
wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all based on the fact there are legitimate reasons why people might be visiting these redirects other than simply typos. For example, in
Markdown, unescaped right parentheses are interpreted as the end of a URL, so often times when people link these Wikipedia pages in Reddit comments, people will be directed to these sorts of titles. In addition, of course redirects are cheap. --
Habst (
talk) 16:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all These redirects are explicitly discouraged and would fall under
WP:R3 if created today. There is precedent for deleting them, and keeping them would have
WP:PANDORA issues.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete all per all the other times those redirects with missing parentheses got deleted cogsan(nag me(stalk me 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Redirects are
WP:CHEAP, and these are all likely from external links on sites such as Reddit and are absolutely pointed at the correct targets. These also all appear to be popular enough to get regular use about 5 users a day or so. Genie especially is frequently posted and can get very high daily page views (e.g. 6k a few weeks ago). It does Wikipedia no good to delete it or to force them to make an additional click. Arguments to delete because no one is going to forget typing the closing parentheses or because of auto-fill should be ignored, as the use case for this is almost exclusively linking from external sites. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is an example of the formatting issues with Reddit's Markdown language for its posts that is the primary reason for these redirects existing in the first place:
[16]. Very few people are using these links deliberately. They are being forced to, and we should've deliberately inconvenience readers because of minor stylistic issues. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't be responsible for creating redirects accounting for bugs in other platform's errors. A bug that has been fixed years ago, from the looks of it, being fixed well before the reddit post was made, as implied. People using old reddit are doing so knowing full well its limitations. So now there's zero surprise that a parenthesis could go missing at the end of a URL, as it's been long-since documented and understood, apparently. The solution is not "allow infinite redirects with botched-up disambiguation because old-reddit users might run into a broken link here and there, despite it being fixed for many years but refuse to upgrade to avoid it"; or, we can stop supporting "
Foo (bar" titles due to the pollution it causes on our end, allowing implausible misnomers among redirects, splitting histories and causing messes and clutter that can be simply avoided. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(Also in response to the reddit poster's query linked, I tried the second hyperlink on both old and new reddit and it seems to be working fine for me; I'm getting to
Paris (surname) both ways.) Utopes(talk / cont) 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
i hear the error (whatever it actually is) was fixed ages ago cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, it does not work for me in Old Reddit either on PC or mobile, with or without RES. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reddit is an absolutely massive website with hundreds of millions of users, so even a small percentage of Old Reddit users represents a significant population. Old Reddit users aren't people who just forgot to upgrade or something, there are real downsides to New Reddit (mainly ads-related) that lead them to opt out. A bug being documented is not equal to the bug being understood and 100% of end users having the technical know-how to avoid it. While not a scientific survey of any sort, anecdotal open-source evidence
[17] seems to show that approximately 5% of Reddit users seem to use the older version.
No one is saying that we should enthusiastically encourage or go out of our way to create a duplicate redirect for each page with a parenthetical disambiguator. But for ones that did get created, someone found them
WP:USEFUL and where we have proof that they do get use as is the case here, which are two reasons explicitly listed as the #4 and 5reasons not to delete redirects at
WP:R#KEEP, where's the harm in keep them? Far more editor time has been wasted trying to delete these than has ever been spent on creating them in the first place. These titles are not misnomers, with only a clear typographical difference and the page histories are usually extremely short. Many of these have also stood a decade or more without any serious issues. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all These are pointless, as people are unlikely to be typing in the full disambiguation anyway.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all – Many chat programs and similar, when making links clickable, automatically omit a trailing parenthesis, considering it part of the surrounding punctuation, so redirects repairing this are always useful.
Gawaon (
talk) 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Vote changed to delete all, since, as
Shhhnotsoloud pointed out (below), our software already handles this automatically, so there is no need for creating or maintaining such links manually.
Gawaon (
talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all per
WP:CHEAP. Would I have created these redirects myself? Possibly not. Do they do any harm to the encylopedia and/or readers by existing? Also no - as far as I can see, they are practically harmless. I'm not seeing how these types of redirect are problematic enough to warrant deletion, and deletion may well do harm by breaking external links (
WP:R#K4). To answer Utopes' point above, we're not responsible for creating these sorts of redirects for every title that exists, but I don't see how deleting the ones that do get created benefits the project. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 13:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Out of curiosity are any of the other examples at RDAB the result of programming error? --
Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Patar knight: I don't know, but arguably Wikipedia isn't here to provide redirects to get around everyone else's bugs. (And anyway ... in old Reddit a redirect that misses the trailing parenthesis gets you to, for example,
Harris (surname. The first thing at that page and many others is "Did you mean:
Harris (surname)?". We simply don't need these redirects, and already have a useful essay which lists the kind of redirects we don't need.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, noting the nomination has been open for over five weeks, as consensus has yet to precipitate. Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per Lunamann and Steel1943.
mwwv(converse) 14:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per WP:RDAB and Steel1943. These are not only unhelpful as a link but also unnecessary as a search term as the valid title exists and will autocomplete anyways.
Gonnym (
talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of
Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of
#MediaImpression,
Ubcule had enhanced the target and added the products, including the one under discussion. Jay 💬 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep all since they're now mentioned at the current target.
CycloneYoristalk! 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all per PPP
Okmrman (
talk) 03:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Mentions added to target. Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid.
Fieari (
talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go
Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends
says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.citation needed (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?)
Mathglot (
talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funnyultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads-talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and
WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however,
google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging
WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they
require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created,
pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of
WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per
WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is
no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started).
Mathglot (
talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be
problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a
factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms.
Drdpw (
talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per arguments already put forward above, and also anyone who actually searches for this term is likely to be a child. Plenty of other
redirects lead to fellatio (
65 in total) and as far as I can see none of them are as juvenile (with the possible exception of cockgobbling) and unlikely to be searched. Obviously, juvenile content is allowed on Wikipedia but together with the rest of the arguments put forward is it really necessary in this case?
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Couldn't English learners also search for this term?
Air on White (
talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I am a language learner. When learning Dutch, I learnt the word "penis" (admittedly I could have taken a guess at that one) long before the colloquial "lul". In Swedish I know the word "manslem", and in Spanish "pene" but don't know any other ways of saying penis in either language. Maybe I'm an oddity, but in my experience language learners learn the actual word first and then the colloquialisms. I'm sure language learners are more likely to use the word "penis" as it's the same in Dutch, German, French (with an accent), Swedish, Portuguese (with an accent), Danish, Bosnian, Norwegian, Turkish and Latin, I'm sure amongst others. The point is, I don't think the argument that maybe English learners will use a relatively obscure euphamism for male genitalia holds up under scrutiny.
Adam Blacktalk •
contributions 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not because it is particularly bad, but to avoid a repeat of the
WP:X1 Neelix issues, even if those were more prominently about breasts. —
Kusma (
talk) 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Kusma: Forgive me for asking this, but isn't this just
WP:OTHERSTUFF? If this redirect isn't particularly bad, I don't see why it should be deleted based on the idea that other redirects might be created - if they are, RfD can deal with them as/when they occur. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My reading of
WP:NOTDICT is that it applies to the content of articles rather than redirects, and so would be applicable if e.g. someone wrote a dictionary-definition article on a slang term (which is where Wikipedia is not a...slang...guide would apply). However, per
WP:R#K3, redirects from plausible search terms for article subjects are allowed - redirects existing from colloquial terms doesn't violate NOTDICT by my understanding. Best, —a smart kitten[
meow 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Despite how silly these redirects seem, they are still plausible search terms. Google shows 1,700 results for the exact phrase "sucking peepee." Meanwhile, the alternate spelling "sucking pp," which does not yet have a page, records 11,100 results. The arguments that "sucking peepee" is an unlikely search terms are speculative, as these two were nominated for deletion within an hour of being created, leaving no time to collect pageview data. The likelihood of a redirect being useful should correspond with how often it is viewed, after all. Why not just keep these new redirects? There's no harm. If they truly are useless, we can always RfD again.
Air on White (
talk) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't even know how long the discussion will last. I'm gonna vote weak keep because it's a colloquial term among people talking about sex privately.
Ahri.boy (
talk) 07:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ahri.boy: When voting, please add a reason for why you're voting the way you are, as we're not simply counting votes.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Shuggie
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Drove
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Retarget (comics), no consensus on what to do with (character), which does not bar someone from boldly restoring and tagging as merge.
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
These 282 "foo LGD" redirects were created in the last two days, on 11 and 12 May 2024.
[19]Chocolateediter briefly described their intent as to aid editing "When you have long-ish lists";
[20] they are intended to redirect to UK local government districts, hence the novel initialism "LGD". They have now been used to shorten the targets of piped links, eg changing [[London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham|Hammersmith and Fulham]] to [[Hammersmith and Fulham LGD|Hammersmith and Fulham]] (with 30 other such changes) at
London boroughs[21] and similarly with 7 other new redirects at
Greater Manchester[22]. This obscures the targets for other editors and does nothing to help readers. "LGD" is not an initialism in common use in the UK and can't be expected to make searching easier for readers.
NebY (
talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural request: how best can we consider all 285 new "foo LGD" redirects? Must each be tagged and how, and do we want a full list here? Totally outside my experience and toolkit.
NebY (
talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
NebY: I can go through and tag them semi-automatically using
WP:JWB if you'd like. I'm unsure of whether there's a standard for how to list large nominations; but two ideas I had are (a) placing the list on the
log's talk page and linking to it from here, or (b) including them above but wrapping the list in {{cot}}/{{cob}} tags. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
A smart kitten Thank you! Tagging them all seems good and proper, as long as it doesn't make far too much work for the closer if they're kept. I guess having them listed on this page would be better - but yes, definitely wrapped.
NebY (
talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Done (courtesy ping
NebY, as I modified your nomination slightly to reflect the fact that all the 282 redirects are now bundled.) —a smart kitten[
meow 13:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's great - thanks again.
NebY (
talk) 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
intitle:/ LGD/ insource:/REDIRECT/ limited to article space seems to find basically all of them (not sure why it appears to be finding only 282 as of this writing), in case it helps.
Skynxnex (
talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, 282 is correct; turns out my crudely pasting a list of contributions into a spreadsheet's no good.
NebY (
talk) 13:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The redirects don't appear to be particularly plausible but seem harmless and unambiguous. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep at least most I agree with Crouch Swale that the majority of these are harmless and unambiguous, which is an obvious keep. However,
London LGD →
City of London doesn't feel right to me - there isn't a single local government district for London, but if there was one it would be the
Greater London Authority (or, in historical contexts,
Greater London Council,
London County Council or
Metropolitan Board of Works). The City of London is never referred to as just "London" in administrative contexts.
Thryduulf (
talk) 21:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete all - they're not plausible search terms and just create unnecessary overheads.
Shortcuts aren't conventionally used for the article namespace and I think we'd need project-wide consensus to change that convention.
WaggersTALK 09:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Harmless? Maybe. Useful? Probably not and LGD isn't really used as an initialism for "local government districts".
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 20:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is for readers not editors and these redirects don't help readers: in fact they might be confusing if a reader assumes "LGD" is a legitimate well-used abbreviation, which it isn't.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Confirming delete as nominator after listening; they don't help searching and could confuse, are an invention not seen "in the wild" or on Wikipedia, shouldn't be used as a pipe target, and if in the long-term the UK's local government is modified, editors will find they have to take unusual steps to update the encyclopedia.
NebY (
talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).</noinclude>
Same terminology, different meanings. Does its meaning depend on the absence/presence of the hyphen, or can it have both meanings either way? –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 21:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My thought exactly.
Either it is a term legitimately attested to in the literature,
or else it is POV and should be deleted. Which of these it is, I will leave to smarter contributors than myself – the top Google “hit” points to one of the target Wikipedia articles and the second one points to this RfD itself! (and subsequent “hits” point to academic articles that are way “above my head.”)
Bwrs (
talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
did some looking around and "technofascism" apparently means "fascism that uses technology", not "fascism in technology", so both of those are wrong
either retarget them to
fascism or a more fitting target, or cause them to mysteriously disappeardeletecogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I imagined "technofascism" being a portmanteau of technocracy and fascism (with the former referring to governance by experts, not technology itself) and that it would refer to a blend of both. –
MrPersonHumanGuy (
talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
probably true
Bwrs (
talk) 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We should target both to
Techno-populism#Technocratic populism. There's a brief bit about it there. I don't know that it has a particular stable meaning, but at least we clearly attribute one of them at that page. --
asilvering (
talk) 01:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bwrs' reasoning.
Waylon (
was) (
here) 17:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Target both to Techno-populism#Technocratic populism per asilvering. Jay 💬 15:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There's one sentence at the proposed target (Techno-fascism is a concept introduced by Janis Mimura to describe an authoritarian rule executed by technocrats). That's really not enough substance to support two redirects.
* Pppery *it has begun... 19:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What would it take for it to be valid as a redirect? Jay 💬 09:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In 2018, Colonia Ulpia Traiana was redirected to
Xanten. The page has had some debates in the history, and another user is now indicating that this should not redirect to Xanten, though they haven't created a page, only a 'See also' section to
Vetera. Given that they have reverted the redirect, I figured it should come to RfD.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Pinging
JoNeuen: Instead of reverting the redirect, please discuss here why you think the current redirect target is incorrect and where you think the page should redirect to.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 02:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I have proposed this on the Xanten page. The reason for reverting is that Colonia Ulpia Traiana is an archaeological/historical site, which is only briefly discussed in the Xanten article.
JoNeuen (
talk) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The piped link mentioning Colonia Ulpia Traiana at the current target goes to
Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, so retarget there. There's also
Ulpia Traiana, which redirects to Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. I think both redirects should point to the same place. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 03:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there! So, the link to
Vetera was made because I created this article myself. As with
Colonia Ulpia Traiana, the
Vetera article was redirecting to
Xanten before, but I cancelled it because I was working on a translation from the
German article. I considered this justified, because I didn't get a response on the
Xanten talk page in over a week. Since translating and complementing articles using translation is what I mostly do here, my intention is to do the same with
Colonia Ulpia Traiana. The
Xanten page is already considered incomplete and these German pages are full of valuable historic and archaeological information that might benefit English speaking Wikipedia.
JoNeuen (
talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about restoring
this version? The editor in question was a suspected sock, but the article was neither deleted nor the edits hidden for socking. Jay 💬 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose doing that. It wasn't deleted because there was a pre-sock version to revert to. It wasn't revdelled because that's generally not done. We don't reward socking like that.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Jay's proposal to restore the earlier version, and use it as the basis of further development (which would heavily involve translation from de.wiki). Refusing to use the article on the grounds that it would "reward socking" is cutting off WP's nose to spite its face.
Furius (
talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with other similar redirects. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepLarissa Hodge, we have information on this person and it's found at this target. It doesn't matter that it's very little information - this is what we have and that's where it is. Delete the others as they are unsourced alternates and nicknames and also not described at the target.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Larissa Hodge is shown as her contestant name Bootz which is referred to as Larissa Aurora in another section of the article. So I'm not on board with the logic of keeping one but not the other. Jay 💬 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A topic not discussed at the target page, as "supple" nor "supplement" ever appear at the target page. Was BLAR'd in 2017 as being based on almost entirely unreliable sources, but does not serve its purpose as a good redirect if there is no content to be read about this at
PageRank. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Google's Supplemental Results (technically still there - just not labeled as such) were not relevant to an article about the PageRank algorithm. Technically, the Supplemental Results are all the low-value content for which Google makes room available in its index, but they're not likely to be selected for competitive (high-interest) queries. Nor are the pages likely to be recrawled or refreshed very often. The only real connection anyone from Google ever confirmed was that these types of pages usually had very little PageRank. It would be more appropriate to redirect the page to the article about Google and add something there, assuming a suitable resource could be found (probably one of Danny Sullivan's articles from Search Engine Land from around 2006-2010).
Michael Martinez (
talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk) 06:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with nominator. Not context to be seen.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 03:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the consensus here is too weak to delete article history at RfD. Restore and send to AfD.
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Modmin
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Delete Jay's argument has gone unrefuted by all subsequent commenters
SuperCops Vs Super Villains
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Keep Supercops and Delete the others
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Delete The retarget proposal was challenged and has received no other support. If you really care you are welcome to create the new redirect and anyone will be welcome to renominate it at RfD.
King Karlomann
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: retarget
Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general
WP:SYNTH explanation for horse.
Unicorn,
Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated
horse with a horn (which points to
unicorn). We also have
horned horse and
magic horse for consideration.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with
Unicorn and
Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the
Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on
Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes(talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is
original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at
Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at
Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to
unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While
unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn.
Skynxnex (
talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse.
Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to
Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to
Horse is an uncited definition (
WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is
a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to
Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be
seen here. Delete. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?"
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a description in
Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to
Unicorn and figure it out. Going to
Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the
My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a
pony is just a horse with dwarfism...My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lunamann: Reminder...
WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect
Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit
Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, they're pretty clearly meant to be stylized horses. Saying they're not because "they don't have separate hooves" is like saying the Villager in Animal Crossing isn't a human because they have balls for hands without separate fingers. It's an artstyle choice, not a worldbuilding choice.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork.
* Pppery *it has begun... 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case.
WolverineXI(
talk to me) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really, you just have to apply
common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing.
WolverineXI(
talk to me) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much?
Aaron Liu (
talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it "is not remotely likely to searched for" when it does have pageviews (and substationally more than the similar pages
horned horse and
magic horse linked above if you think this RfD is the cause of those pageviews).
Doublah (
talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep pretty much for Hey man im josh's reasoning. Redirects don't need to be reliably sourced; they need to be useful for navigation. This is a term others have used, clearly to refer to horses; there's no reason to not direct our readers there.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: An important purpose of redirects is to be useful for navigation and search engines, considering the substantial results on search engines for hornless unicorn in reference to horses does prove the usefulness of a redirect with no real downsides to such existing (And no, "Unicorns are not real" is not an downside).
I will remind that the purpose for a redirect as a search tool or a navigation tool is to arrive at an article which says more about the topic. The article
Horse doesn't even mention unicorns, let alone hornless ones. So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. (As a member of the WikiProject Equine, I can assure you that any content about "hornless unicorn" would be unlikely to survive in the article
Horse, should anyone try to add it there.) To make matters worse, since there is no source which says a hornless unicorn is a horse, to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as
verifiability,
no original research and
WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. – @
Grorp: That's quite the lofty claim, and an argument made in bad faith. ...to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). – That's factually incorrect, it wouldn't violate any of those policies as a non-derogatory redirect. It's about expected result and possibility of usefulness (even if minor) when a redirect is searched.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It quite literally violates all of those policies almost immediately in each's first paragraph. You're saying that original research isn't original research as long as it's not derogatory? Per
WP:OR policy, "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists." Pseudo-science isn't derogatory either, but it sure is filled with original research most of the time. Is there a derogatory-clause that makes certain types of OR more acceptable than others as long as its nice enough? Per
WP:V policy, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable from a reliable source". If you can find a reliable source that hornless unicorns are horses (and by extension that unicorns exist for hornless versions to exist), and can insert that into the article or even as a note on the redirect itself, that would actually be miraculous.
WP:FRINGE is generous because that means that there's people out there studying a division of Unicorn Biology and can give a basis that hornless unicorns are indeed horses, but indeed per the
WP:FRINGE guideline, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant [fringe theories]". What other reputable source is saying that hornless unicorns and horses are basically the same thing, if not Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not meant to spread "common sense" about what's left after taking the horn off of a unicorn, but only spread information that has been reported on by reliable sources. Wholly inappropriate redirect without mention. If you think it's a search term that's fine but it's current target is a major pseudo-scientific no-go across several layers. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but no prejedice to "retarget" a better target can be found. For example in
Runescape there are unicorns but no horses. The in universe mythological "hornless unicorn" is clearly a meta-reference to the horse. All the best: RichFarmbrough 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC).reply
Keep per Rich Farmbrough and Hey man im josh. As for me, it seems plausible that a "hornless unicorn" might be a thing in mythology (i.e. what happens if you cut off a unicorn's horn? does it go back to being a horse or does it become some other third thing?). jp×
g🗯️ 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It might be nice if we answered this mythological-specific question somewhere on Wikipedia, instead of sending these mythology searchers to a biology page with none of the content they were looking for. People who really want to know the dynamics of horn removal of mythological creatures would not be typing "hornless unicorn" on Wikipedia, and certainly would not be happy with a page about horses when they could have just searched "Horse" to begin with if they really were that interested. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: After a month here, no one has yet to provide a single reliable source that even infers a "hornless unicorn" = a horse. One month in and the arguments are
WP:ILIKEIT,
WP:DOESN'THARM and "it's plausible" versus
WP:OR and
WP:V. Why is this not yet closed? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn -- "a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead". jp×
g🗯️ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Inadequate. Asked for a source for "hornless unicorn". "Depicted" isn't the same as "is", and doesn't mention hornless. You are engaging in
SYNTH. It's a big leap to go from a mythical creature that allegedly "looks like" something known on earth, to a real live flesh and bone earth creature. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's pretty clearly not SYNTH or OR, so I'd drop that stick. It also appears as though you're unwilling to be convinced, which is fine, but at this point you're best off leaving it to the closer to interpret.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 00:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Closed discussion, see
full discussion. Result was: Delete without prejudice against creating an article by Steel1943's proposed split or other methods.
Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Could go to
list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and merge to the list page per the AfD close of
Daniel, who in 2008, anticipated that the contents could be merged to a list page. Jay 💬 09:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nobody seems to want to do that "restore and merge" as this has been pending for over a month. Just delete in that case.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
MergeFrances Lockridge and
Richard Lockridge to a
joint biography at this title. The articles are almost identical. The differences are biographical in nature and can be combined in a biography section with sub-sections dedicated to each person. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having created the Frances Lockridge article, merging the pages seems like an OK alternative, although Richard's career continued for a decade or two after Frances' death. I just would prefer not to have a joint page directing to Richard specifically, or have only Richard have his own page but not give Frances her own, which would feel dismissive of Frances. —
Bookworm-ce (
talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As an alternative proposal, how about dabification? This probably isn't a standard outcome for
WP:XY-type redirects; however, given that this is a valid search term (as opposed to a combination of 'X' and 'Y' that isn't used anywhere else), I'm leaning towards
ignoring the rules to the extent necessary for this proposal. I'd be in favour of this outcome as opposed to merging, due to the fact that (in my opinion) RfD isn't the ideal forum for considering/discussing article mergers, and I'm not sure if it's strictly within its remit -- to be clear, a merger could still be discussed, but by a process such as
WP:PAM rather than at RFD. I've started a draft disambiguation page
below the current redirect. Pinging previous participants: @
Bookworm-ce,
Presidentman,
Roman Spinner, and
Tavix. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why we would need three pages where one is sufficient. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
One may turn out to be sufficient, but I don't personally feel comfortable opining on that matter in this discussion; as (to me) it's more of an article content question than one regarding redirects, and due to the fact that the two pages in question aren't aware that a merger is being considered at this RfD. If the consensus at (e.g.)
WP:PAM is to merge the articles, this proposed dab page would no longer exist - however, prior to such a merger (if one occurs), this disambiguation page would serve as a navigational aid. My view is therefore that RfD could dabify this redirect, but without prejudice to a merger discussion (which would, in my view, be better suited to make that determination). All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Articleify into an article about their collaboration under a pen name. The articles with their individual biographies can be kept if they meet GNG outside of their collaboration, otherwise a full merge could work.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are a bunch of proposals here that involve outcomes outside the scope of RfD, and hence we can't force anyone to do any of those. What the RfD closing admin should do is delete and allow the merge/articlefy proposals to be done if someone actually does them.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Pppery. Let any admins familiar with merging do this.
104.7.152.180 (
talk) 04:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with
Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as an {{R without mention}}. This line is basically the only one in the entire song, and I don't see any other likely target. FWIW, I didn't know the title of the song for several years but knew this line. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
basically the only one in the entire song Wa-huh?? The
Cha Cha Slide is basically nothing BUT lyrics, associated dance moves, a backing beat, and after the line Cha-Cha now, y'all, a short funky sting. Have you been listening to the same song I have??The main issue is that the song isn't referred to as the "Cha-Cha Slide" in the lyrics-- it's referred to as the
Casper Slide Part 2. ...Wait, why isn'twasn't THAT a redirect...?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with {{R without mention}} places the redirect in a maintenance category,
Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via
WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for
WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to
kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now.
Steel1943 (
talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Y'know, maybe we should edit R Without Mention to more clearly state "hey, this is a maintenance category akin to {{
template:Citation needed}}, it's not meant to be kept on a redirect that intentionally doesn't have a mention on the target, don't tag it as this and then keep". Seems like I see quite a bit of people
erroneously using R Without Mention's existence as an rcat as proof that Rs without mention are Okay in certain circumstances, akin to {{
template:R from non-neutral name}}.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Or maybe the maintenance category should be seperated from the tag, because there are plenty of situations where we don't need or want a mention at the target, but the redirect is still helpful to have. Incidentally, I agree with Presidentman above that this should be one such. Imagine if
I get knocked down didn't redirect to
Tubthumping... how would people find it? (yes I know Tubthumping does reference the line, but even if it didn't I'd hope this redirect would exist!) Keep.
Fieari (
talk) 07:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue with that is that there would be nothing left to populate said maintenance category. ...Maybe there should be two separate rcats? {{
R without mention}} and {{
R intentionally without mention}}, perhaps. (also rq: editing my first comment here to link to a relevant essay)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"R from lyric" is a template for "lyric redirects that point to a source that describes the lyric". Redirects should not exist for every lyric that people can think of. The long-established metric applicable for all of the actually-valid "R from lyrics" is based on whether or not there is a mention in the article (and thusly a reliable source that can be attributed to and corroborate the lyric mention, in practice) Utopes(talk / cont) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I've seen no convincing argument that this redirect is encyclopedic, and as previously mentioned, we don't need redirects for every line of lyrics out there. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 02:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers.
Okmrman (
talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is what a smartphone is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the terms were used before "smartphone" became the established term (I can't check as Google is refusing to show me results that are both verbatim and before a given time, and either one alone is overwhelmed by irrelevant results where the two words happen to be adjacent, especially in lists in adverts).
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't this actually link to telco equipment? Such as a PBX or other phone computers --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The phrasing of these redirects makes me believe they could also refer to
Modem, thus making these redirects ambiguous.
Steel1943 (
talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I reaffirm my "delete" per Ivanvector's comment: A disambiguation page would not be the solution since none of the subjects mentioned so far are title matches. Let Wikipedia search do its job instead.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think it is easy for English first speakers (or young people) to say they aren't needed, but they probably serve some utility and they perfectly describe what they are.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dabify. As Steel mentioned, a viable interpretation of this would be
Modem, being "a phone used by a computer". However, I'd also think that
VoIP phone-- a phone that uses the Internet instead of normal phone lines-- or
softphone-- a software program that could call other people, which could be downloaded and installed on a PC-- would be valid interpretations of "Phone computer" or "Computer phone". Given I'm sure none of the above- including
Smartphone (a phone which is a computer)-- would be a primary target, dabification is warranted. edited at 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - disambiguation pages are for topics that have the same title, not for manually compiled search indexes of possibly related keywords. We have a search engine for that, let it do its job.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget Computer phone to
One Per Desk to match
Computerphone. Delete Phone computer per all as ambiguous but not suitable for a dab page. Jay 💬 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate - given Jay's find of
Computerphone pointing to
One Per Desk, deletion seems undesirable as it would leave a redirect to a niche usage that is nevertheless justifiable as a search term and redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both; these phrases are incredibly ambiguous and not really common parlance for anything. Oppose disambiguation for the same reasons. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget Computer phone and delete Phone computer per Jay. Computer phone should be kept since a plausible target for it exists, and due to its similarities with
Computerphone.
CycloneYoristalk! 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.