Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 0 0 0
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 5 1 6
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 36 36
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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 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

[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD

[edit]
Shortcut
  • 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.

When should we delete a redirect?

[edit]


Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

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.

Reasons for deleting

[edit]
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (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:.)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.)
  9. 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.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

[edit]
Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 article text 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. 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.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

[edit]
Shortcut

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:

  1. 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).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. 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.

Closing notes

[edit]
Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

[edit]
Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • 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|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{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.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
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

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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.

Current list

[edit]
Shortcuts

October 16

[edit]

Jamie Jungers

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. (As below, Redirects from people seem a little more urgent than most Redirects to an article without mention.) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for other mentions on Wikipedia: the set index article Jungers says she's a woman associated with Tiger Woods, and she's described tangentially as one of Tiger Woods' alleged mistresses at Be-Shure § Notes and Dog's Most Wanted § ep6. Be-Shure only cites TV guides for that claim, and the other is uncited. Since there's no good target elsewhere, I think the redirect should be deleted unless a WP:BLP-satisfying mention is added to Tiger Woods. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti

[edit]

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japetus

[edit]

No apparent reason why this spelling would not have the same primary topic as Iapetus. Would boldly retarget, but it's been a redirect to the moon for 18 years with a hatnote, seems like it's worth a discussion first. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted

[edit]

Even with my chemistry bias, I feel like this is too broad to redirect to its current target. If the chemistry use is really primary, substituent would likely be a better target. Retargeting to substitute, soft redirecting to Wiktionary, or deletion may be better options. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget where? Mdewman6 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Β-aminoethylamine

[edit]

This bot redirect makes no sense, replacing phenyl with amino. Delete to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I suppose it would be just aminoethylamine or α-aminoethylamine, which aren't used, whereas β-aminoethylamine just makes no sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PCR

[edit]

What do editors think of a retarget to Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes? In my experience I've often seen this initialism used to refer to the pending changes reviewer user group, and absolutely never for this essay section. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's used a lot in mainspace, but I think it's all through {{context inline}}. It would be easy to not use this shortcut in that template. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beta-ethylphenethylamine

[edit]

This indicates a different compound than the target (one with an additional carbon atom, ethyl instead of methyl), one for which enwiki does not seem to have any content (see C10H15N, versus target's C9H13N). Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ra'ad 1

[edit]

The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect, targeted the article which currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Trumpkin

[edit]

The nomination for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Rapey McForehead led me to examine the past redirects of Jasonbres (talk · contribs), who has a mile-long talk page of warnings (including for the inexplicable redirect of Donald Faison's character Christopher Turk on Scrubs to Black Scrubs) and one past block on their record, and these are the most inappropriate and provocative out of all of them, unlikely to be used, and after being asked by Traumnovelle (talk · contribs) why they'd even fathom creating such a provocative rd, answered "I think at the time, it was trending on Twitter, and I created a redirect for people who wanted to know who that name was referring to", which for the first three, I don't consider post-sink Twitter's trending topics a source for anything, much less redirect material. The last one is just clear nonsense, but the first three are undeniable WP:BLP violations, while the laptop reference is for terminally online political folks only (re: a 'blue-check' counterpoint to this). Nate • (chatter) 00:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Trumpkin is used in RS: [2] [3] and whilst a non-neutral name I don't think it is a BLP violation, although the lack of views suggest this redirect is not useful and not worth the lack of neutrality. It isn't like these articles aren't using his full name.
'Amy Covid Barnett' is a clear BLP violation, only search result I get is a forum that is filled with offensive remarks about Barnett.
'Leningrad Lindsey' is used here: [4] and has 53 page views so might be an okay non-neutral redirect, although the RS clearly identifies his full name.
Last two are highly unlikely search terms as demonstrated by their 6 views in the past year.
Delete all bar Leningrad Lindsey where I am neutral on keeping it for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think the last one is nonsense, and imo it should be unbundled from the rest of the political-people redirects. We should be discussing redirects based on their individual merits, not bundling based on assumptions about the creator. "Mthreegan" is a very common spoken-name for the film. (Also, the block was for 24 hours in 2008. Recent warnings and RfDs aside, I'd hope one would be able to consider that event looong past). Utopes (talk / cont) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

[edit]

Vocational education and training centers

[edit]

Vocational education and training centers is really vague and the first thing I think of is not China. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Vocational school makes the most sense to me as well. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote as per Shhhnotsoloud and feminist. While the actual name of these camps is "Vocational Education and Training Centers", which means this is likely the primary topic, this can still be a rather WP:ASTONISHing place to end up if you didn't know about them. Luckily, Wikipedia has a handy tool for this situation--
"Vocational education and training centers" redirects here. For the institution these camps claim to be, see Vocational school.
Maybe give a second pass on how to actually write this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what... I could accept this. I do find the name astonishing, but the hatnote should be enough. Changing my !vote to Keep with Hatnote. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C F A 💬 00:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose being kept at current target there are plenty of other topics using the term and I see no evidence this is the primary topic for the redirect [5] [6] [7]
Also @Lunamann that hatnote suggestion is a clear NPOV violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CBOT

[edit]

could this also refer to cluebot ng or cluebot 3? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sure, but shortcuts are usually ambiguous. Citation bot can be activated by other editors, so it makes sense that it's a shortcut there instead of Cluebot. -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Tavix. Shortcut redirects should generally be left alone unless there is actual evidence of them causing problems, especially as hatnotes can be added to reduce any potential confusion (on which note I will add a hatnote to WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:CONTEXTBOT if this RfD closes as keep and there are no objections). Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gehn wie ein ägypter

[edit]

no mention of the german fandub in the target. i found no reliable sources for it, so a draft doesn't seem like a plausible decision. originally a prod that went nowhere, so it got blarred a year later, presumably for having no sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RLANG. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect to the band, Die Ärzte? It got redirected to the article as a merge but I don't know if anything was actually merged. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapey McForehead

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10.

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_19#I'm_sorry_Dave. I'm not convinced that deletion was the right outcome there, but this redirect should suffer the same fate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Fortunately we are not bound by consensus so when a previous discussion gets it wrong we are not required to repeat it. This is a very notable quote, indeed it's the most notable quote from the entire work. There are potential arguments that "I'm sorry Dave" could be ambiguous (I've not looked to see if it is in practice), but for the whole quote every single one of the hits on the fist 8 pages of Google for I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that -Wikipedia -Wikiquote (not even the exact phrase) are about the film, about the line from the film, or referencing (almost always explicitly) the line from the film. People are using this redirect (sometimes it's getting multiple times per day) and the target is unambiguous, so deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf. Even if it's not explicitly listed off in the actual articles, this is, as Thryduulf notes, the most notable quote in the entire work, a quote near synonymous with the character of HAL 9000 itself. Removing this redirect or directing it anywhere else would do a huge disservice to the readership. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Lunamann... from April, during the previous discussion. What I'm reading in THIS discussion, based on what has been stated so far, is baseless assertions of "having highest notability" with zero particular sources or evidence behind the claim "it's the most notable quote from the entire work". "Synonymous with the entire character itself", no less!! According to the information listed on our Wikipedia pages, Hal 9000 and its reliable sources, it's not. There are 8-10 quotes at the target that are namedropped, WITH sources and enough presumed importance to be featured in prose, but none are this one, and none of those have redirects.
Is it really the most notable quote from the entire work? Genuinely excellent! This content could improve the encyclopedia. So there MUST be some way to verify this claim from a reliable source? If I were to type this in as a significant quote, for starters I would certainly want to read about the quote SPECIFICALLY, because that's exactly the search term I typed in, but such an article does not exist at this time. Therefore, we'd want to encourage readers to add material which we don't have, per WP:REDLINK. For a standalone article, a structure like Our princess is in another castle! could work? We've definitely done it before. But maybe this quote-topic can be covered on a different page, and not have to be standalone if the sources aren't up to par. If I had to pick a character to end up at, I would personally want to go to an article about "Dave" (because that is the name I purposely typed). I did not type in HAL 9000. If I wanted HAL 9000, I (and anyone who wanted to find HAL 9000) would've typed in "HAL 9000", which I deliberately be avoiding by typing in 9 words, none of which contain "HAL" and none of which contain "9000". The search term is, for all tenses and purposes, a totally separate topic. A quote. Not a character. And nothing exists for it on Wikipedia, it seems.
If this quote is so important as it is claimed here, it seems like it'd be a homerun out-of-the-park slam dunk to have SOMEthing, SOMEwhere, related to this quote. But, to the best of my understanding, we do not, anywhere. We didn't in January. We didn't in April. And nearly a year later, not in October either. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from the history, given that not even Lunamann wanted to save this in April, is that this quote must not be worthwhile! (Obviously this is not true, because the quote IS "important" and likely notable, possibly even reaching standalone notability! But Wikipedia is not trying to "right the wrongs" of a lack of coverage. We can only report on, and redirect based on the material that is contained here on Wikipedia. Not what we want it to contain. This is regardless if it's "important", but not mentioned yet.) The way to indicate that there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage to be filled, is a redlink. This redirect has zero valuable history. It can ALWAYS be recreated once someone feels it necessary to discuss this potentially notable quote on the biggest online encyclopedia. Which will certainly happen eventually, especially so if the "quote is synonymous with the target itself". But doesn't need to happen now. We are in WP:NORUSH to finish it. And in the meantime, people who search for a quote, and don't end up at material directly related to their search term, will certainly be misled, as Wikipedia is not, does not function as, or advertise as a "type in a quote and get the character who said it without any mention of the search term you used because it's not 'important' enough to be covered at the target page you ended up at" service. The content of the article dictates the redirects that should exist. Not the other way around. Recreate the redirect once a sourced mention is added, somewhere on Wikipedia, because there are none right now... besides one.
Alternatively, retarget to Love and Rocket where the quote is discussed, and HAL 9000 is readily linked. But my guess is that people would probably not want that. Welp. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Traditioanl Jewish law

[edit]

Unlikely mispelling (correct spelling also a redirect) Naraht (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plausible typo but not enough views (1 in past year) to justify the required maintenance. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "traditional" is not hard to spell; swapping vowels and consonants changes the phonetics, making this one implausible. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a spelling error I agree this is implausible. As a typo it is very plausible - both n and o are typed (on a QWERTY keyboard at least) with the right hand, while a is typed with the left; tying a right-left-right sequence instead of a right-right-left sequence is one of the more common types of typo made by touch typists. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vulkan-Hercules

[edit]

The redirect should be deleted unless information on the Vulkan-Hercules is added to that page, and sourced. As the redir target exists today, there is a mention of a future design concept (Vulkan); but no mention of Vulkan-Hercules or Hercules anywhere in the entire article. N2e (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanker jadapa

[edit]

Originally created as a BLP spam redirect for Shanker (now a surname disamb) as seen here: [8]. Serves no purpose as an rd. Gotitbro (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: neither disambiguation page contains somebody named Shanker jadapa Ca talk to me! 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Aleotti (Q3929201)

[edit]

Implausible search term. The id in brackets is a wikidata item id. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy is Dead

[edit]

Popular video within TF2 communities but no mention of it in article. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RETURNTORED. No info present in article; if someone has info on this they can make a page or section on it somewhere. Until that happens, we don't need this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
kill per lunamann. no prejudice against reenacting heavy is dead here cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime Podcast

[edit]

True Crime or Podcast? The podcast page definitely doesn't say anything about true crime. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to True crime#Podcasts BugGhost🦗👻 06:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SHOUTcast Wire

[edit]

What does this specifically even have anything to do with podcasting in general. Should be noted that Shoutcast does have its own page. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was likely a very early version of a 'top 10 list' for podcasts and online radio stations that are now mainly Apple and Spotify's purview. No real use in 2024. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Mongoloids

[edit]

This is going to be very controversial if it's kept (at the current target). TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle with the singular version. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly

[edit]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a term that should be wikilinked. If readers wanted an article about 1, they would search up one, not a derivation of it. It has low pageviews therefore I do not support a soft redirect, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once (adverb)

[edit]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as above. Ca talk to me! 15:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linjian

[edit]

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Mongoloid

[edit]

While this term has been historically used to describe the people of the First Nations, this is the equivalent of having the n-word redirect to people of African descent. There is even a plural version of this redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we didn't have an article on the word nigger it probably would redirect to African American as a non-neutral and historic name. In fact the oldest edit that can be still viewed shows it as a redirect.
Whether it should be targetted to Mongoloid instead is a different issue but we don't delete historical terms because they're offensive. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never really said that this should be deleted, though I probably should have mentioned that Mongoloid would be a better target. It's just a bit jarring to see a non-neutral term redirect to an entire ethnic group when there is already a better target. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle I seriously hope you don't mean what you said in your first sentence. That would be an absolutely batshit, awful, ridiculous redirect and it would be a WP:CIR issue to think otherwise. Think about things before you say them, especially in topics like racial slurs. BugGhost🦗👻 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gipsy is a slur and redirects to Romani People. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects do not need to be neutral, for two reasons. 1, they are not visible to most readers unless people specifically go looking for them, next to nobody is going to start at Indigenous peoples of the Americas and end up at American Mongoloid. 2, if someone knows the non-neutral term but not the neutral term, redirecting to the neutral term both gets them to the requested information, while also teaching the reader what the neutral term is. I'll note that the N-word and F-slur both have their own pages with, in the first sentence for both, a link to the group each slur in turn is pointed at, so they're possibly not the best examples you could've given. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shows me to reply without hitting refresh after having the page open for an extended period, lol. Changing vote to Retarget to Mongoloid; though I will note that if the retarget fails, I do support Keeping as a backup option. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indyans

[edit]

Is this supposed to be slang? I don't even see any actual usage of it and googling it, most results relate to actual Indians. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian lore

[edit]

probably a joke but definitely not really a redirect worth any value TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North American people

[edit]

This redirect is a bit too vague to even refer to the natives of NA let alone all of the natives from both NA and SA. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Контрудар: глобальное наступление

[edit]

This definitely falls under Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Couldn't Russians just use the Russian translation? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RFOR Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the fact many Russians play this game, it's not useful in English Wikipedia as this game wasn't made in Russia or has ties to it. JuniperChill (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

КСГО

[edit]

probably counts as Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete American video game with no mention of Russia or Cyrillic. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

[edit]

I'm struggling to see the utility of this redirect that marginally abbreviates two of the three words in the full name of the airline. If space is at a premium surely you'd either just use "KLM" or abbreviate "Airlines" as well? This saves only 3 characters. Googling "klm Ryl Dtch Airlines" -Wikipedia brings up exactly one hit on Google, "how to pronounce", which scrapes Wikipedia page titles. It's amassed 77 hits since the current page view tool started keeping track in July 2015, which (if my maths is right) is an average of 0.7 hits per month and since 1 January 2023 it's accumulated only 4 hits. Capitalisation is by far the least important point here, but for any redirect in mixed case I'd expect KLM to be fully capitalised. On the other hand, this is old (created 2012) and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe I got it from a document saying that, but sadly I did not make a note on where I got it from. In some newer redirects I am including URLs/documentation so I remember why I am redirecting some terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Steal Away."

[edit]

Was at this title for approx a day in 2011 after a faulty move from userspace. Per the existing "precedent" of quote titles listed at User:Uanfala/Redirects with quotation marks, none seem to just, contain punctuation unnecessarily. "Unnecessary" seems to be the case here as the song is just called Steal Away with no other modifications. Would also be ambiguous with Steal Away and the 5 other articles with this title (shockingly, no disambiguation exists yet, just a massive hatnote at Steal Away listing literally everything I suppose, lol. I'll make one right now at Steal Away (disambiguation)). Utopes (talk / cont) 02:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

[edit]

"Stinker" does not appear at the target article for Bugs Bunny. However, it is mentioned at The Abbott and Costello Show and several other articles including List of Saturday TV Funhouse segments, and WikiQuote at q:Hare Force. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I feel that more people know this phrase from Bugs Bunny than from Abbot and Costello. I it a plausible search term, but I'm unsure whether we should drill down and really determine if there's a WP:PTOPIC, or if we should disambiguate. I don't think deletion is a good idea due to the plausibility of someone searching for this very famous phrase. If a PTOPIC is found, hatnoting may be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would boil down to "where will readers receive the information most pertinent to their search term and have their questions be answered", and that is not the case at Bugs Bunny with zero mention. Yet the phrase "Ain't I a stinker" has like 6 mentions across Wikipedia, all of which might possibly be valid and could draw the target, but the fine details can be ascertained through this RfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not relevant on the Abbott and Costello TV series page, because it was never used in the series. A better place might be on the A&C radio show page, or the Abbott and Costello bio page. I do think it is a minor phrase that wasn't readily associated with the team.Plummer (talk)

"Ain't I a stinker"

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No other page in Category:Redirects from catchphrases is encapsulated in quotes. The word "stinker" does not appear at the target page. Someone who uses this term, WITH the quotes, clearly is looking for something specific to the phrase. If someone wanted to read about Bugs Bunny, they can search for "Bugs Bunny". But, by specifying quotes, we're dealing with a situation where the quote and related material is SPECIFICALLY desired, and that's not what readers will get when they type this. Furthermore, encapsulating a search term with quotes is highly unadvisable in the general sense for all redirects, and a tiny fraction of such titles exist. When searching for an exact text match via the Wikipedia search bar, quotes can be used to see "how often a phrase appears on Wikipedia in its exact form". The quotes in this title actively inhibit that, as "ain't I a stinker" is presumably a phrase that can (and does) manifest in all sorts of forms across Wikipedia. Therefore this should be deleted to allow ease in navigation. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondina

[edit]

Supposedly a slang name for the compound per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2007#Diamondina, but there is no evidence as such on Google or Chemical Abstracts Service or PubChem. Article was originally under this name for a little over a day back in 2007. Normally a typical {{R from move}} that should be kept somehow, but if there is absolutely no discernible relationship to anything on enwiki it could just lead to confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

[edit]

This is a quote from Ford to Sammy, supposedly. However, it is an unlikely search term and not particularly useful as a redirect, among the millions of quotes that exist, and only appears within a reference excerpt. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't no party like a diddy party

[edit]

Not listed at target. If kept, I'm also curious about redirecting to Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, given that the quote is related in popular media. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

[edit]

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [9], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."
Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [10]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
    For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

33-4

[edit]

This feels far too broad to be useful. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of the deletion nomination adding 334 bytes... Uhm... Yeah. You know... I dunno why I- [1] ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=33-4&redirect=no
  • Question - Is this score particularly notable in baseball? I know Scorigami is a thing in football, but less so in other sports because it's more trivial to score any particular number... but on the other hand, 33 sounds particularly outstandingly high for a baseball game in my estimation. Heck, backyard whiffleball has a 10 run mercy rule. So I could see this as plausible... but I don't know baseball well enough to be sure. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In America - Barely anyone recognizes it
In Japanese internet culture/Japan itself - Strong Yes
(Disclaimer - The "33-4" score was throughout the 4 different matches, not in a single match). The jawiki has a clear and good coverage of the internet meme associated with the series, but nobody in enwiki so far recognizes these kinds of stuff. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Lean Keep - Not entirely certain whether the English Language wikipedia should have redirects based on foreign language memes, but this may be worthwhile... I'm leaning keep for the moment. For reference, the source used by the Japanese wikipedia to support the statement that 33-4 has become an internet meme there is: [11]. It does appear to be a reliable source according to our own standards. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust a bartender with bad grammar

[edit]

No mention of "bartender" or "grammar" at the target article. People who use this search term will be sent to the article in question with no context as to what this line means, or what it's from. (The edit summary says its from Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, but even at that article, "grammar" is not mentioned, although there is a bartender mentioned once on the cast.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Delete - Entirely implausible search term according to google trends. Our internal stats page shows 5 hits last year, and 45 in the past 4 years, reducing my delete to a weak deletion preference... it gets SOME use. If kept, it should probably be Retargeted to Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, which google informs me is the ACTUAL source of the quote. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not on the notable side of one-liners, even from resident kell dragon puncher and one-liner machine kyle katarn cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many of us have them

[edit]

The phrase redirects to the Whodini song as a key lyric. The phrase is stated on the article where it indicates that Bone Thugs-n-Harmony sampled the song in their song "Friends", which has apparently been retitled "How Many of Us Have Them" in some release (according to the page. That song is on the album The Art of War (Bone Thugs-n-Harmony album). Additionally, "how many of us have them?" is a poem by Danez Smith. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made this after a search delete it if its bad GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Recently made redirect won't cause problems or disruption anywhere with link rot if deleted, but it does appear to be useful to someone (above), and I do not have an objection to redirects from notable lyrics as a search aid, even when those lyrics do not appear in the article. It would be nice to leave the redirect be for a while to see if it starts collecting regular steady hits. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good target so it's better to let readers figure out what they want for themselves in this situation, given that the lyric does not receive any coverage at any of the listed pages. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kahako

[edit]

Per WP:RFOR

Also nominating Kahakos, Kahakō, Tohutō, and Pōtae. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

[edit]

This is the 29th lyric in the second verse. And "lasagna" is not mentioned at the target article. Does not seem to be a need to have this as a redirect when the natural way of reaching an encyclopedic article title is by typing in an encyclopedic article title, because for most regular readers, there is zero way to know which lyric does and does not have a redirect in existence, so the safest play 100% of the time is to identify the title of the song and proceed based on that, not navigating via one particular line for one particular song, a feat which is impossible for essentially every other song article on Wikipedia (as I don't know many verse 2 line 29 redirects that exist towards songs). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible Wikipedia search term evidenced by the minimal page views. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I personally find choosing a random line from the middle of a song implausible as a search term, but it has gotten 18 hits in the past year, so it sees some use-- hence a weak !vote. It still doesn't get much use. Fieari (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Wilds

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Joe Tractorman

[edit]

No discussion of a "Joe Tractorman" at the target article, even if he wanted to change his name and fly away, supposedly... Utopes (talk / cont) 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this redirect to be silly. If you want to delete it, feel free, but you don’t have to. lol -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not up there with damien maymdien in the list of bill wurtz characters i've seen people want to bang. i mean what cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless and not helpful. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is a deadly lazer

[edit]

No Utopes (talk / cont) 00:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, there's a blanket! Seems like one of those humorous redirects. Anyone who knows this meme usually knows about Bill Wurtz, so... unlikely search term? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to ozone layer Refine to Bill Wurtz#History of the Entire World, I Guess, which is the section detailing the video this quote came from. Anyone looking for information on this meme would be well-served to be pointed to the part of the Bill Wurtz article talking about the meme's origin. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's go on land Support refining. The phrase is briefly mentioned in RSes—see [12]—so it's at least a somewhat useful phrase. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
learn to use an egg refine per lunamann, will see if a mention can be added (though i don't have much faith in it) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Lunamann. Even without a direct mention, this will provide the user the information they are looking for ("What was this quote from"). I disagree that it is implausible that someone would remember the quote and not know the name of the man who made the videos, or the name of the video-- that's not how human memories work. Fieari (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzose

[edit]

I feel like this should target quartz as {{R from adjective}} unless there is a good geological reason to target the broader Silicon dioxide article. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, quartzose simply means quartz-bearing or quartz-rich. Mikenorton (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

[edit]

Worker

[edit]

Unclear if this is the best target. This redirect has targeted Laborer, Working class, Workforce, and the Worker (disambiguation) page. Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski and Pppery: who have been involved in this redirect recently. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move Worker (disambiguation) to Worker over the redirect. There should be a primary topic here, but we've chosen to structure the article in such a way that that concept is covered across multiple articles rather than one, so the disambiguation page is the least-bad solution. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cimexa

[edit]

Confusing WP:XNR from draft space. There is no page Cimexa or User:Cimexa and no evidence there was ever any content related to the current target. Delete unless there is an explanation. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaface

[edit]

currently unmentioned in the target and with primary topichood completely usurped by a pizza tower character with the same name (good for him :3). was about to retarget there and call it a day, but per wikt:pizza face, there might be some other possible target(s). opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ALQ-128

[edit]

The topic of this redirect, the AN/ALQ-128, is barely mentioned on the target page about an aircraft, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. The target is a subsection that lists multiple specifications for the aircraft. The reader must look really hard to find the ALQ-128 mentioned. This redirect serves no real purpose and should be deleted. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 21:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this seems to be a module installed on the F-15, but presumably this is installed on other US military aircraft. Delete to allow for article creation on this EW module, if notable. Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like this was an article until 2022 when it was nominated as PROD, but then de-prodded and redirected to its current target. Maybe we should overturn the original BLAR and send to AFD. Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not that i'm an expert in military doodads, but the second and third sources in the pre-blar diff don't seem all that reliable, significant, not user-generated, not deprecated over scraping and plagiarism... honestly, i'm not putting too much faith in the first one (which is currently down, seeing as the internet archive is also down) either, as the wording there implies it's more about the an/alr-56. i did find one seemingly reliable-ish article that mentions it, but it's in passing, not even about the f-15, and seems to only mention it by accident (mixing it up with the an/alq-218, probably) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ..., Hear Me Roar!

[edit]

There is no mention of any "..." ellipsis before "hear me roar". The only use of "hear me roar" is preceded by "I am Woman", not nothings or ellipsis. This is not the way this song would be searched. The only use of a replacement word is "Man", from Burger King. In any case, unlikely. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
— TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ting ting tang tang tang

[edit]

This is not a lyric of the song. This incorrect name is not listed, mentioned, or featured anywhere at the article. The word "ting" or "tang" does not appear anywhere here, so in absence of any context the redirect is confusing, especially for general "onomatopoeia sounds" such as tings and tangs. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?

[edit]

This line is not at the target article. People who use this term instead of looking for "Mickey Mouse March", will not receive content related to their search term. It is currently impossible to verify whether this line is indeed from this song (based on the lack of material in Wikipedia mainspace here), so in absence of any content or material related to the "leader of the club", this redirect is not helpful. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The natural way to search for songs is by typing in the name of the song. there is no one "natural" way to search for anything (that's why we have redirects), rather there are many ways people look for things that exist on a spectrums of plausibility and usefulness as a redirect (the two do not always align, e.g. when plausible search terms have no primary topic). In the case of songs, prominent lyrics are very much a natural way to search for a song when you don't remember the title, and in most cases someone searching Wikipedia by the lyric is looking for information about the song not necessarily about that specific lyric so not being mentioned is not a reason on it's own to delete such a redirect. When a lyric is included in multiple notable songs, very prominently in one and not at all prominently in the other then the one in which it is prominent is almost certainly going to be the primary target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia pages are governed by the titles of articles. Wikipedia is not a FAQ, it is not a question-and-answer, it is not a lyric database, and it is not a type-in-a-line-from-a-song-and-get-the-song-it-comes-from service. We DO have some lyrics that are baked in as redirects. Sometimes it's because people might get confused between a title, and its stand-out lyric (see: The Longest Time vs For The Longest Time. The latter redirect is not the title, it's a lyric, yet the two are practically the same that it's almost interchangeable, and is very frequently used in sources. These are, imo, equally likely to be searched.) But in practice, the the odds of typing in any ole lyric into the Wikipedia search bar, and ending up at the song it came from, sits at a very comfortable ~0% chance of occurring. This is because there are near infinite-permutations of lyrics in existence, millions of songs with thousands and thousands of song articles on Wikipedia, so it just doesn't happen in practicality. Yet, per WP:Article titles, the best way to end up at an article is to type in the article title. With it, one cannot possibly go wrong. If something went wrong? The built-in search engine catches all mentions of keywords in case someone doesn't know the song name (but there are services for specifically finding that), so with enough trial and error you're sure to get to where you want to go. What doesn't occur on Wikipedia? The millions of song lyric databases for the millions of songs that exist. This is not Wikipedia's purpose; this is the purpose of Genius and Lyricfinder. We build redirects for likely search terms with directly associated content. There's trillions of likely search terms out there. We do not have trillions of redirects; we keep and maintain the redirects that are directly governed by what information is actually listed at the page, in order to educate readers on material directly pertinent to the term they searched for, without having to make guesses of purpose i.e. that they're okay with not getting the material they deliberately searched for (chances lean no, such unmentioned redirects are often fairly described as "misleading" and "unhelpful"). Utopes (talk / cont) 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not find it implausible that someone would search for the 1st line of this song. It's helpful. I do not find Utopes' argument above compelling. Sure, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lyric database, but that's why we don't have the full lyrics in the article. All the list of things we are not is about article content, not the search methods to get to an article. Quite frankly, I find the application of article content standards to redirects entirely inappropriate. The only questions we should be asking are "is it plausible?", "is the target unambiguous?", and "is the result helpful? (does it violate WP:ASTONISH?)". This passes all those questions, and that is the criteria by which I !vote keep, basically every time. I do not believe I am alone in my interpretation of our policy in this way. Fieari (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that people may remember first lines of songs. After all, that's the first impression people have of a song. I do the same, especially if a lyric is particularly memorable (a factor that is wholly subjective; I'd personally never create a lyric redirect for my own personal favorite lyric just on that fact alone). But if I don't know the name of a song, I wouldn't imagine going to Wikipedia as my first fix for that, and cannot fathom a single person who would. But moving your main thing, I hope you are aware that redirects are still pages that are in mainspace, and that ALL of mainspace is held to the standard of what Wikipedia is and is not. So that includes redirects, which can very well violate WP:NOT, effectively spanning millions of pages. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should have redirects for every first lyric of every song, and seem to support creating and maintaining/!keeping redirects for every single one without exception. So a database of first lyrics. Maybe even the second lyric. In mainspace. With histories spanning millions of pages. I don't even know where to begin unpacking this. On every front, for every uncited lyric created as a redirect in mainspace, this is a violation of WP:V.
    Based on WP:NOTDB, the policy page that Wikipedia should not be hosting unexplained, indiscriminate information. Millions of lyrics baked into redirects, is exactly that. WP:NOT applies to redirects. The way to alleviate this perennial issue of unmentioned/contextless material, is to at least have the information contained in redirects be verified, SOMEwhere, in an accessible location (like the target, for instance), and ALWAYS verify it if the material is challenged or if it is a direct quote. Redirects are absolutely bound by the verifiability policy, unless you disagree that "all material mainspace must be verifiable" and "redirects are material in mainspace". There's no other way to tell if a redirect lyric is even correct or not. There has to be a standard, and there is a standard, as nearly all unmentioned lyrics have been getting deleted (and only have recently been contested from my own experience). The VAST opinion on unmentioned redirects is that redirects to articles without mention are problematic, which is why CAT:RAW titles are nominated over and over again at RfD to clear out the backlog of neglected titles which nobody wants to resolve. Because at the end of the day, the redirects should not shape the content in existence; the content should shape the redirects in existence. No harm in deletion; pages can ALWAYS be recreated once verification occurs. (It's for that reason that RfD should be the lowest stake XfD as zero valuable history is lost, usually. But whatever.) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For once, I think this this actually something that might reasonably be remembered and searched for over the name of the song itself. The problem though, is that it's unclear if someone would be looking for the song, or the show the song was used in (I think the latter is more likely). And without a clear target, we shouldn't be guessing which of the two possible targets was intended. Disambiguation is clearly inappropriate here, so that leaves us with a delete. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Utopes, even though I think this might not be the best test case, what you've got here is absolute gold. For the love of god, please organize it all into an essay. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

[edit]

No mention of a "cocktail bar" at the target article. No mention of "waitress" at the target article. This is a seemingly unimportant lyric, and people who search for this instead of the natural "Don't You Want Me" title of the song, are likely looking for material directly related to their search term, which doesn't exist here. No verification exists for people who don't know whether they ended up at the right place. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (see above re "natural" ways to search). This is the opening line to the song, which (along with the first line of the chorus) is almost always going to be a plausible search term for those who don't remember the title of the song. In this case the lyric is unambiguous and there is no deep meaning to it that cannot be gleaned from reading the article's section about the song as a whole, so people using this search term are finding what they want to find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is precedent of redirecting the entire first line of books, or movies, or songs, or any creative work, to the work in question (on the premise of being the first line alone). It might randomly happen, but inappropriately so without something particular being true in that case. When it does happen, there's usually more to it, and/or its a special case with special coverage. The precedent arises if the line in question is particularly noteworthy enough to garner sourced content. Perhaps it's been reused multiple times in subsequent works, or an "iconic quote" that people would want to read about? That does not seem to be the situation here.
    In any case, I am challenging this material in mainspace. This material has to be quoted from SOMEwhere, but where? Readers are left with no context, or any evidence that this line is even correct, much less related in any way to the song (i.e. blind trust in redirect correctness with no source, and we've seen that redirects can't always be trusted at face-value for their inate factual accuracy). If this line was mentioned somewhere at the target article, that would alleviate all concerns. But I don't think this particular line in this particular song is relevant enough for even that. If there is evidence that "Don't You Want Me" has some connection to the first line of the song, moreso than any song with lyrics also has a "first line", then that could be worth including maybe, but that's for the RfD to uncover. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1st lines of SONGS, as opposed to other artistic works, are frequently used as the titles and it is very plausible for someone to know the 1st line of a song but not the actual title (see: Tubthumping, granted that's a case where so few people know the title vs the lyrics that it merited discussion in the article, but it still illustrates the general point that this happens). I disagree that it would be WP:ASTONISHing for a user to find the article on the song when typing the lyric, even without a discussion of the specific lyric in question. This is a helpful search aid, not a statement that we are talking about the lyrics specifically. We are not a lyric database, but we can help point people to the article they were likely intending to find in the way that many people search for songs. Fieari (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, "I get knocked down" IS mentioned, WITH a source, at Tubthumping! EZPZ! And is in the album cover too no less, woah! Therefore I get knocked down is substantiated, and I had zero intention of seeing it deleted. It's likely, and demonstrably so, with article content at the target page. Good song btw. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Motherland the German army march

[edit]

No mention of "into", "motherland", "german", "army", or "march" at the target page. Listed as a quotation, but it is not helpful when there is zero context about what the quotation is, who said it, or why it targets this Sabaton album in the article's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My tea's gone cold, I'm wondering why I got out of bed at all

[edit]

Undiscussed lyric, nothing about this line is written at the target page. The natural way to search for songs is by typing in the name of the song. There is no guarantee, and shouldn't be a guarantee, that typing in the first or any line from the song, will take you TO the song. In this case, people who search for a lyric will expect to see material related to the search they used (i.e. a lyric). At the very least a mention. But none exists, and no verification exists for this line at the target article. (Furthermore, it's also a lyric in Stan (Eminem song), which that article links to this song as the third wikilink on the page.) No need to have an ambiguous unmentioned line be a redirect to one particular song when there is no guarantee people are looking for it. "Stan" and "Thank You" have plenty of links between the two already. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I sort of know the Dido song, where it's not particularly prominent, and don't know the Eminem song at all. Google results (both personalised, where I would expect it to show me Dido in preference to Eminem, and not personalised) and DuckDuckGo via tor all show me the same mix of results favouring Dido by about 60-70% but that's not enough for a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior

[edit]

No clear basis or target, not mentioned at current target. Could possibly retarget to Nicostratus (mythology), but the title conveys several different ideas with the Greco-Roman and Warrior aspects. Delete due to lack of clarity. TNstingray (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The history shows an old article that looks to be an attempt to make an article for Nicostratus (mythology). I don't think retargeting is helpful though as this seems like an unlikely way to search for the mythological figure. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unlikely search term for anyone looking for Nicostratus (mythology), and the other options listed under Nicostratus are even less plausible. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The pre-redirect article appears to be about a fictional character, possibly from a modern work of fiction (in which case, it's one that nobody has yet recognized), or perhaps made up by the author of the article. It doesn't correspond with any of the persons listed above, and I don't see any matches in PW, although I admit my ability to scan the German text is inadequate; the most accessible copy of the DGRBM is down along with Internet Archive, but this article just doesn't seem plausible. The use of "Greco-Roman" in the title for someone who would obviously belong to Greek mythology or history, and the fact that the author never contributed anything else to Wikipedia, suggests that this was never a legitimate subject from either history or mythology. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External factors plant

[edit]

is "???" a valid reason? created as a stub of debatable coherence, currently a little too vague to be used anywhere. it might even be subject to differing definitions of "plant" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ill-formed and unsurprisingly unused. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRYYYYYYYYYYY

[edit]

too many ys? wryyy already exists, and i doubt there's the need to type more than 3 of them for a sort-of-catchphrase cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, excessive, implausible, unnatural, not needed; people would be unlikely to use this search term to read about "Dio Brando", when they can use the incredibly natural way of searching for an article about a person or character, i.e. by typing in their name. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World (weapon)

[edit]

stands are not inherently "weapons". stands like emperor (a gun) and anubis (a katana) are pretty literal weapons, and heritage for the future has "weapon stands" (which is a game mechanic, not a literal category), but the world (a buff ghost) is neither. can't name any notable cases of someone using a world as a literal weapon, besides maybe amid evil's celestial claw, which shoots planets cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Stands are not weapons"? Huh, I didn't know that. Learn something new I guess. Anyway, expecting all readers to be on top of their Jojo lore in order use a Wikipedia redirect is unrealistic. Searchers have zero need to already understand the definition of a Stand, and whether or not Stands are weapons. Those fight scenes are hype, what else would "those things" be if not weapons? In any case, no other weapons are named "The World" at World (disambiguation), so there's no problems here. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not inherently weapons. you wouldn't whack someone with khnum (a face), love love deluxe (puberty as seen in big mouth), super fly (i can't leave without my buddy superfly) or the world (buff guy, would you rather have it punch things or use it as an impractical bludgeoning tool?), but you might consider ratt (dart gun), sex pistols (bullets), and weather report (weather) to be weapon-like enough. also note stand (weapon), which got deleted not too long ago, and the world (stand), which was created by some wonk just after this rfd nom cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for creation

[edit]

Propose retarget to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The reason is the article wizard is for if someone has an article that they want to get started on but do not have any ideas, not to request an article be created. Awesome Aasim 18:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fedback 2400:9800:3B1:9646:1:0:84D6:D5A2 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buccal organ(s)

[edit]

closed before with consensus that we're not biologists. trying again with the same rationale (that being that mouths have other organs, like teeth and tongues), so i hope y'all studied your chompy boys. still not sure if retargeting to mouth would be the best idea though cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mouth is the best option for buccal organ – it's the buccal organ, it just contains some other lesser ones. The mouth is, you could say, the mother of all buccal organs. Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't be retargeting this to "mouth". No one is typing "buccal organ" into wikipedia and expecting to find "mouth", since we just have the word "mouth" for that. The reason that "buccal organ" exists is to describe different kinds of mouth-like things. Like the thing annelida have. It doesn't describe teeth and tongues. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    by definition, it does. teeth, being bones, are a little iffy (some could say i was... wrong!?), but tongues, as noted in the article, are explicitly organs that are in the mouth (and thus, buccal), and so are lips now that i think about it again. this article i found within 20 minutes of looking around refers to "buccal organs" as just organs in the mouth of humans, and this article does the same for birds (and with less subtlety). if there are species of birds and humans that have suckers, i probably missed them, in which case my bad cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and of course, the exact moment i decide to click reply, i remember that there's a list of organs of the human body here, and it happens to list teeth as organs that are in the mouth. what are the chances~? yes, i know other species also have mouths that may not have tongues, lips, or teeth, i'm just using humans as an example cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T:WPMHA

[edit]

~Two incoming links. With the existence of the "TM" alias, TM:WPMHA is a totally sufficient shortcut for navigating to this page, in an effort to keep a confusing PNR out of namespace. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the redirect predates "TM:". But 2014 is really not that old. Pseudo-namespace titles have been majorly contentious for much longer than a decade. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18#T:WPTECH is an example of a heated discussion, but T: titles have been getting nominated since 2010 and earlier (on principle of being T: titles). So I'd hardly call 2014 a "longstanding example", especially as this title has never stood the test of time. As an example, T:AC has been the subject of 3 RfDs. T:WPMHA has been the subject of none, so there's no precedent of !keeping. It's only been "unearthed" as of today, basically. Compounded with WP:NORUSH to discuss this PNR sooner.
We don't "generally keep" cross namespace redirects on the premise of "being old", so I'm really not sure where that statement comes from. Being old does not inherently give a title immunity. Especially so if the title is otherwise problematic, which cross-namespace redirects inherently are, especially ones from mainspace where our casual readers stick to. The "problematic"-factor is offset by some level of demonstrable utility, which is why such titles might stick.
Quick aside: pseudo-namespace redirects =/= cross-namespace redirects. WP:PNRs are designed to allow for easily linking to a title, without the need to write out the whole prefix for the namespace. "Template" might only be 8 letters, but if you're typing it ten or so times a day for monitoring purposes, those keyclicks add up. PNR utility can come from either use in wikilinks, as well as use in a search bar.
So let's examine demonstrable utility. This title was created in 2014, exclusively as a compromise when T:WPMA was getting deleted. Since its creation, it has only been used by one person, the creator, on this talk page. As far as T: titles might go, 1 usage per decade is on the low end. The wikilinks are easy to adjust. Pertaining to "use in a search bar", well, the TM: alias makes it easy to access ANY template now, so all search-bar-efficiency rationales are essentially caput for T: titles. (Unless, for some reason, there's a template on WP which is so vital that its "utterly necessary to shorten 'TM:' to 'T:', saving a singular keypress". That might've been the case when 7 key-presses were being saved by "T:", but now that it's down to 1, I'd be shocked if that's the case for any template on WP.)
In closing, cross-namespace-redirects from mainspace are always unideal. Casual readers should not be accidentally falling through a trapdoor only to end up in the Wikipedia backrooms, if they can help it. T:kort, T:SCC among others, are content articles on in mainspace which "T:" titles actively infringe on. So PNRs of this type should be kept to a minimum, as they interfere with reader navigation to actual articles. Now that the TM: alias is a feature that exists, I predict most (if not all) "T:" titles will be deleted before the end of 2024, but that's just my own prediction and idk if that'll truly occur or not. But this I feel is one of the more uncontroversial ones to go; its a comparably easy two-link repair, and a solo nom to test the waters before a potential group nom of other T: titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's old, it is getting used (as determined by page views, not by count of links from current revisions of pages on en.wp), it is unambiguous and I'm not seeing any evidence of it having caused any actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems in the last 10 years. We need more than that to justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learn something every day. I wasn't aware that T363757 added TM: as alias to Template: on English Wikipedia five months ago – in May – until now, and I'm probably not the only active editor for which this is the case. I see that ever since the T: prefix was snowed under back in December 2010, a subset of these have been picked off one or a few at at time. We currently have just 63 categorized redirects to template namespace and Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 pages. (79−63)=16 non-template T: prefix redirects:
Non-template T: prefix redirects
# Redirect Target
1 T:A Tribes: Ascend
2 T:APRM Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
3 T:DS Thief: Deadly Shadows
4 T:SCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
5 T: SCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
6 T:TSCC Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
7 T:SCC Episodes List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes
8 T: New York Times Style Magazine T (magazine)
9 T: The New York Times Style Magazine T (magazine)
10 T:kort T-kort
11 T:MP Talk:Main Page
12 T:DYKT Template talk:Did you know
13 T:TDYK Template talk:Did you know
14 T:TDYKA Template talk:Did you know/Approved
15 T:tdyk Template talk:Did you know
16 T:OTD Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries#Today

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list is for non-Templatespace redirects, 16 of which exist says wbm1058. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comprehensive list of T: prefix redirects to template namespace is the first 63 redirects listed here. I made sure that list was comprehensive (as of the time of my edit) by making one – two – three edits. Indeed, one of those was to T:CENT. It's so easy! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryl

[edit]

I was surprised to end up at this target. "Ryls" are mentioned, sort of in passing, but there are equal mentions in articles about multiple other books by Baum (including The Runaway Shadows and Nelebel's Fairyland), L. Frank Baum bibliography indicates it is part of the title for multiple of his works. It is also the name of the protagonist in Pastures of the Blue Crane and, in capitals, is an acronym for Radical Youth League. The current target is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knook from 2011, but the closing admin (SilkTork) said there was no agreement on [a] target. with two different places (neither of which include a mention in their present version) suggested. On google the primary topic is a brand of iced tea, but we don't seem to have content about that. I'm not sure what the best option is here, maybe disambiguation? Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've been pinged as I created the redirect after the AfD, but I don't think I have anything useful to contribute, other than to feel that Thryduulf's suggestion of disambiguation appears to be useful. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dabify. good job, ip :3 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps triple

[edit]

testing the mass xfd tool, sorry in advance for any errors. a meme, from a guy named chad warden, who parodied the gen 7 console war. the only contexts in which this name is used are as references to chad, as a siivagunner meme (which is actually also chad warden), and in miscellaneous contexts in which "ps" doesn't stand for "playstation". (un)fortunately, chad and the meme associated with him aren't notable cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open/Point No.1

[edit]

These are the names of the first two tracks. But not a likely search term, and fairly open to interpretation. Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online education

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Seems ambiguous. There is also Online school. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Involved) Relisting as the September 15 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Retarget to Online learning, or to Online school?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to online learning. in this case, i feel a dab would be more helpful, as it also includes all the suggested targets (and then some) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26, November, 2006

[edit]

This day is not discussed at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per, nom. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There's nothing wrong with the formatting. "Day, Month, Year" is totally plausible. The issue is a lack of coverage of this date in mainspace, for a mainspace search term where readers predict, and expect, to end up in mainspace when typing it. A blue-link here is misleading to prospective searchers, when we have no mainspace coverage for such a term. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26 where there are plenty of mainspace links to events that happened on that day. -- Tavix (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Retargeting would only justify creation of similar redirects. Furthermore, the use of multiple commas is not usually standard.
- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't explicitly cite WP:PANDORA, but "...would only justify creation of similar redirects" is pretty much entirely what a WP:PANDORA argument is-- so I'm going to direct you over to WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Tavix and Utopes. The Day/Month/Year formatting is completely plausible, and the only thing at issue is an extra comma-- which, one extra character added by accident shouldn't impact plausibility enough to delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer deletion, so I wouldn't say via of me. The formatting is totally fine, but because there is no mainspace coverage of this encyclopedic search term, going to a portal where there is no encyclopedic prose or editable material is unideal. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

[edit]

implausable redirect. No hits on google for usage as a shortform of "Wikipedia" -1ctinus📝🗨 21:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Board

[edit]

Delete as vague term. Searches turn up a mixture of results about political entities as well as boards at universities. Champion (alt) (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

[edit]

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysolith

[edit]

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 19 September 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, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview (typeface) and others

[edit]

These redirects point to articles where there is no mention of the subject at the target. They are similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Tenorite (typeface). My opinion is to delete as Enwiki appears to have no substantive material about them, but the decision should be consistent with the result of the other RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Aptos (typeface)#History, where all three are discussed-- the article tells you what they are, why they were important, what happened to them, and even where you can get them now, which in total is information I'd find substantive. As I mention in the one for Tenorite, an alternative might be to delete as per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation; however, I'm not sure they're notable enough for their own articles. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping trains

[edit]

Not mentioned in the article, nothing in wikt:bumping. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, potentially add mention: Apparently, this is a decently well-known term for evading train/subway fare. https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/london-train-expert-explains-youd-26292881 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so long as it isn't mentioned. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of the word "bump" or "bumping" at the target article. The redirect has zero valuable history so nothing will be lost upon deletion. The title can always be recreated when material is added, which doesn't even have to happen this year. There is no rush to improve the encyclopedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How do we generally deal with slang terms? I suppose this one evolved out of "to bunk a train" (same meaning), which I can find attested since as early as 2002,[21] and which I'd guess exists since the 1980s or 90s. However, it does not seem like we have any redirects that involve this one. Wiktionary has no mention of this one either, even though it is still in use, as confirmed by a quick google search. I'd even say "to bunk" in this context is much more common than "to bump". -- In the meantime, I lean keep, per Lunamann. It seems to be a popular slang term, in use since the late 2010s,[22][23] and the redirect has been viewed 56 times this year.[24] Renerpho (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catcher's mitt

[edit]

Originally targeted Baseball glove, but was retargeted without explanation in 2009. Seems a pretty obvious WP:DIFFCAPS case to me; suggest reverting to old target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Baseball glove as the clear primary target for this title, and put a hatnote on both. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and hatnote, per above. Note there was already a hatnote on Catcher's Mitt, but it was in the wrong place (under lead) and so was rendering incorrectly on mobile web - I've just fixed that. BugGhost🦗👻 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

[edit]

Not mentioned in target. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above and also per the fact that there are no sources that this is a prominent figure with serious connections to the target article. - AndreyKva (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as a contested WP:BLAR. The article was tagged for notability, but it was well-developed with nine references so it definitely should not be deleted here. Another alternative would be to retarget to Austudy Five where he is mentioned, but really that should be an option presented at AfD if someone wants to take it there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf, none of the sources at Austudy Five support that he was part of the event. Two of the sources are dead so they might have supported he was, however both of those (Green Left Weekly) are unreliable. The only reliable source on that article is The Age and it doesn't support it. That event itself might not pass WP:GNG as the only reliable sources I can only find are The Age article already in the article and three Crikey articles that look like they might be opinion pieces. TarnishedPathtalk 11:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed target has also been proposed for deletion. Notified of this discussion there as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Cowan (rugy union)

[edit]

This redirect has an interesting history—it was left over from a move to the target's base title back when it was still about the rugby player with that name, then that was moved to the correctly spelled Ronnie Cowan (rugby union) (a plausible title worth keeping) a minute later, and then the page at the base title was converted to a disambiguation page...while this redirect was never picked up and stayed pointing at the disambiguation page. I know pointing readers to a disambiguation page with this misspelled title isn't the right course of action, but I'm not sure what we should do with it—delete it or retarget it to Ronnie Cowan (rugby), or another route? Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 06:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

[edit]

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.
If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.
Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes (talk / cont) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidepiece (DJs)

[edit]

Music duo containing both Party Favor (DJ) and Nitti Gritti, both of which have articles. We can't have a redirect where two possible targets are the most logical. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

[edit]

National Sports Administration

[edit]

This redirect is likely too general to be correctly associated with the target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a hatnote "national sports administration" is a generic term, but "National Sports Administration" as a proper noun does appear to be unique to China, so per WP:DIFFCAPS the present target would appear to be correct but a hatnote should be added to wherever national sports administration would target if it weren't red (it's not immediately obvious to me where that is). Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Von Detten

[edit]

Simply not an alternative name. This was created in the early 2000s, but was redirected to Eriee Von. It hasn’t received an edit since 2005, and averages 0 views a day. Roasted (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Days

[edit]

Used to redirect to Day, but was retargeted by DeCausa in July 2024. Some of the links to this redirect seem to be intended for Day, and some are intended for the song. I'm starting a discussion at RfD because I expect retargeting to be the outcome, but if Days (The Kinks song) is the primary topic for "Days", then it should be moved to this title per WP:MISPLACED. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Nose-pickers

[edit]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Copa América

[edit]

WP:TOOSOON. The hosts for even the 2028 games aren't decided. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

[edit]

This redirect began its history as an article about the subject, which was then redirected to the correctly titled (and almost exactly duplicate) article that was created less than 6½ days later. It's also gotten nine pageviews in the last year compared to the target's 9,710, which further muddies its plausibility, so I thought I'd send it to RfD to discuss this matter. I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 06:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate

[edit]

This redirect is a leftover from a move back in February 2020 to the correct title, which I'm not sure is plausible to be kept lying around, especially since it hasn't been used much (it's gotten 118 views during its lifetime, which is pretty small since that equates to less than 1 view per 15 days). Delete unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 06:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JD "the Couch" Vance

[edit]

I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/harris-walz-first-rally-takeaways
This article likens him as "the couch", so idk about the nickname being nonexistent YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Thryduulf. The proposed new target explains where the nickname came from, and why. Removing the redirect at this juncture because "it'll be irrelevant after this election cycle" is running into WP:CRYSTAL issues-- we're not yet after this election cycle, are we? When and if it truly becomes irrelevant, is when we should remove the redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couch sex

[edit]

The first thing I think of is not JD Vance or Hillbilly Elegy. I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sex with couch

[edit]

I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_4#Couch_sex also the first thing I think of when I read this title was not JD Vance or Hillbilly Elegy. I get that this was a meme but I don't think it's really appropriate and after this election cycle it won't really make a lot of sense. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K'gari (local council), Queensland

[edit]

I would like to delete this redirect. It was originally created by someone who must have wrongly thought that it was a local council, when it is an island. As per WP:RFD#DELETE, I think it meets the criteria of causing confusion as it may lead anyone stumbling on it to think there is or was a council of that name. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

[edit]

I'm not sure this redirect is plausible with the repeated "of the" in the title—the correctly formatted List of speakers of the Wisconsin State Assembly was created last month—and plus nothing really links to it, so I thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.


October 11

[edit]

Allan Cerda

[edit]

Cerda is not listed as a player on the team, and according to his MLB profile, he has played for several teams, so I'm not sure what the best redirect would be. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Same reasoning as before. Not sure why this wasn't deleted before re-listing.-- Yankees10 18:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fântânele River (Mureș)

[edit]

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehaviour

[edit]

Not actually helpful redirects. The reader expects a description of, well, bad behaviour, but instead is redirected to a page that describes "behaviour" in general and doesn't describe misbehaviour in the sense of a kid pulling the cat's tail. Misbehaviour isn't actually the antonym of "behaviour" here, even though it sounds like one. The behaviour article discusses behaviour in its broadest biological and societal sense. Soft redirection to wiktionary seems the best option here. Cremastra (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment drafted dab at Misbehaviour. But without further work (e.g. adding relevant section to one or more of the articles in "See also" so that those articles could be listed in the main section of the dab), after this discussion is closed someone else may eventually come along and dispute the existence of the dab page by proposing that the film articles be moved to the base titles. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melonade

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Path

[edit]

These should presumably point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned Suikoden characters (2)

[edit]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned several times in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames from the name Leib

[edit]

deletion requested, the target doesn't contain any surnames from the name Leib but only lists persons with the surname Leib. One would expect derived surnames like Leibovich, Leibovitz, etc. Hodsha (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Revilla

[edit]

Pita Revilla is the mother of Bernard Palanca and Miko Palanca ([34]). A one-sentence article was created but reverted per WP:NOTINHERITED. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current target, as Bernard's article is the only one with information about the subject. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

[edit]

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"
However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?
I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research impact

[edit]

Delete. The redirect is a very broad concept (the impact of research), and the target is very specific (a programme that evaluates the impact of research in the UK). If we have an article that discusses research impact, the general concept, this should be retargeted there; otherwise it should be deleted to encourage article creation, since the current target is country-specific and doesn't explain what "research impact" is. Even the target's "research impact" section merely quotes the programme's own definition of research impact, without any hints about this definition's usefulness outside the UK. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary beast

[edit]

Doesn't this also refer to Suicune/Raikou/Entei? DAB based on legendary bird. Web-julio (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to raikou without much prejudice to a dab, at least for now, as it's the best- uh, the first one in the pokédex, and the legendary kitties manage to be the primary topic for the entire term by a longer shot than they probably should be. results for "legendary beast" -pokémon and similar searches gave me...
  • the behemoth... but specifically the one from final fantasy 14... and specifically the name of a quest related to it in monster hunter: world
  • a toy company, seemingly big fans of comic books. no article for it though
  • a lot of books, most of which are partial matches like "the first legendary beast master", or "the legendary beast of kara". no articles for any of them though
  • pokémon. i specified that i didn't want pokémon, and google gave me pokémon
even then, most results were just descriptions of things, like "wow those gym guys sure are legendary beasts, that's real muscular of their muscles", or terminology from live service games. if sources can be found for leviathan and its wacky buddies, it'll probably justify a dab. as is though, i find it pretty unlikely that the term would be used for anything other than the pokémon, even though that really shouldn't be the case here. how does it just gobble up basic terms like this for itself, d*ng cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
drafted a dab regardless, by the by cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legendary creature is the WP:PTOPIC here, not individual Pokémon, but I would support adding a "For legendary Pokémon, see List of Pokémon" hatnote seeing as it could potentially be helpful. BugGhost🦗👻 17:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pokemon is a fictional creation from the 1990s, not legend or any other kind of folklore, so characters from the franchise are merely fictional, not legendary. There's no question in my mind that the current target is the primary topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: For clarification, the reason that these three are referred to as "legendary beasts" is because they are classified as Legendary Pokémon in-universe, and Pokémon fans frequently refer to these three Pokémon as the legendary beasts. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I could easily see people wanting to read about actual legendary creatures when they type this in, but Google results clearly favor this trio of Pokémon. For clarification, the term "legendary beasts" is frequently used to refer to these three collectively, as they are considered legendary beasts in-universe and are classified as Legendary Pokémon. Legendary bird is a similar case and is currently a disambiguation page. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google results are naturally going to be biased in favour of recent pop-culture subjects. This is a concept with thousands of years of (pre)history; Pokemon can't compete. Nyttend (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      to say the least i can, i disagree with that. from some snooping around (googling things and looking for specific dates), use of the term "legendary beast" and its plural form has been primarily associated with the funny kitties by a long shot since at least mid 2001 (i'm not pushing it to back july 2000 when a tcg pack released to tease gold and silver, apparently already using this name for the trio, that'd be a stretch even by my standards). while it probably shouldn't, i think those particular pokémon can compete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this is an encyclopedia, not a pop-culture directory or a popular-right-now website: we prioritise things of long-term significance. When I search Google for "apple", all but one of the results on the first two pages are related to the computer company, but we leave the fruit article at apple because it's of long-term significance. Try looking in dead-tree sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A dab has already been drafted below the redirect, but there's still not enough support for closing this yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the closer. If kept, at least the DAB can be put at Legendary beast (disambiguation), as it's already drafted in the main page. Web-julio (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fendlerella utahensis

[edit]

Fendlerella is no long a monotypic taxon according to Plants of the World Online. The redirect should be deleted to eliminate the false blue links in lists of species and encourage article creation. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Women's Finalissima

[edit]

No information at the target about the event, better left as a red link for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualify as per above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Futsal Finalissima

[edit]

No information at the target about the event, better left as a red link for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DC Super Hero Girls (disambiguation)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

The [console]: round 2: the revengening

[edit]

same case as the others, but not previously nominated. nominating separately just in case cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait
delete the playstation4 and the playstationiv as malformed. should have noticed them before cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I know they seem a bit redundant, but the "the"'s do actually get used. eg "the Wii", "the PlayStation 4", and "the Wii U" are all used in this article on Britannica, "the Wii U" and "the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3" and "the Switch" in this Guardian article. "The" + [games console] is a pretty common structure. BugGhost🦗👻 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. As per WP:CHEAP; redundancy is not an issue for a redirect; the important question to ask is if A: it's possible that it could be typed, and B: it goes to the correct place. B is unquestionably correct for every single one of these-- and with A, as per BugGhost people do refer to these consoles as "The [console]"; it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be typed as such in the search bar. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Media

[edit]

what is "media" here? games? music? persona 5? originally created as a short paragraph about how the ps3 can Do Things™ cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The [console]

[edit]

closed before with no consensus (on the properly capitalized ones, that is). consensus, in slightly more recent times, seems to be that the "the" is not all that necessary. opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - (my comment on the similar RFD here.) The Dreamcast article's opening paragraph starts with The Dreamcast is the final home video game console manufactured by Sega, Nintendo Entertainment System starts with The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) is an 8-bit home video game console produced by Nintendo., Playstation 3 starts with The PlayStation 3 (PS3) is a home video game console developed and marketed by Sony Computer Entertainment., and Playstation 4 starts with The PlayStation 4 (PS4) is a home video game console developed by Sony Interactive Entertainment.. BugGhost🦗👻 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on closer inspection Redirect The PlayStation to PlayStation (console), as it's current target is the brand PlayStation, rather than the original PlayStation console. Keep the rest. BugGhost🦗👻 15:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The PlayStation to Playstation (console); Keep the rest, as per BugGhost. As per WP:CHEAP; redundancy is not an issue for a redirect; the important question to ask is if A: it's possible that it could be typed, and B: it goes to the correct place. B is unquestionably correct for every single one of these except for The PlayStation -- and with A, as per BugGhost people do refer to these consoles as "The [console]"; it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be typed as such in the search bar. edit 15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSX2

[edit]

would make sense, since the ps1's codename was "psx", but that wasn't the case for the ps2, so no one refers to it as that. also not to be confused with the psx that was... a video recorder with a ps2 grafted to it (technology was weird back then), or anything in psx. there is an emulator called "psx 2" (not to be confused with pcsx2), but it doesn't have its own article yet, and doesn't seem to be for the ps2 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Dos

[edit]

no particular affinity with any language that uses "dos" as "two". results were mostly related to some weird fictional language's use of "dos", as the plural form of "of" (so "...alguns dos melhores jogos de playstation" actually means "...some of the best playstation games"), with no particular affinity with the ps2 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Delete this one as per WP:RLANG. We're not the spanish Wikipedia. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

[edit]

Soft D

[edit]

I believe this has nothing to do with Finnish. Re-target to Danish phonology. There is not mention of a "soft D" on the Finnish page. There is, however, a relatively well-known concept in Danish called "blødt d" which is even talked about on the new target page. Furthermore, if you Google "soft d," all the results will be for the Danish concept in question, indicating its relevance to the new tarket, and not to the current target. Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Maryland alumni

[edit]

Is this the right place to discuss cat redirects? In any case, University of Maryland redirects to University of Maryland, College Park, not University System of Maryland, so retarget to Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the correct place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No relation

[edit]

WP:SSRT: "only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." Fram (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild keep; created because I thought it might be the kind of thing that would have an article, and when it didn't, a redirect seemed useful. But I'm not dying on the hill of it and I don't care to argue about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 3 October 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) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Delete or maybe weak retarget to No Relations as a plausible error. Otherwise too vague to have a specific target, and soft redirects to Wikitionary only get in the way of normal searches (which always include links to WIktionary for existing entries anyway) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While we don't need a soft redirect for every page, having a few scattered around is not so harmful as to require deletion. Why waste time on something so WP:CHEAP? Basically, don't bother with this one, it doesn't matter. It's not like we're encouraging people to create soft redirects willy nilly... and it seems this one did have a purpose for someone, so why not let it stand? That said, I really don't care that much. Fieari (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to No Relations as an R to plural; encyclopedic searches should lead to encyclopedic, editable material where possible. I agree there should probably be an article at this title though, seems fitting. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-duction

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Appears in the Index of genetics articles (despite being a redirect, though the page also contains a bunch of redlinks), and is mentioned in the article about Edward A. Adelberg, who apparently discovered this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Suikoden

[edit]

Target contains no such list. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned twice in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history? Also notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. list(s) not present. list of characters in suikoden had one (1) source and nothing else, and was written almost entirely in an in-universe style. won't debate the reliability of the source in question because it's down and so is the internet archive :c, and the thing it would be about (that being the hero's name) is not present in the target anyway cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tellurane

[edit]

Tellurane is not hydrogen telluride, but a heterocyclic compound 109.52.57.238 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Bengals (AFL)

[edit]

Should probably point to the modern Cincinnati Bengals, who also played in an American Football League. O.N.R. (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WhatLinksHere and pageviews point towards most of this redirect's views being from links rather than searches, so if a retarget is made it's best to fix those links. J947 ‡ edits 05:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrotion

[edit]

Not really a plausible phonetic misspelling, nor a plausible typo. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits are a mix of things I can't work out (most prominent is a reference to a model of Volvo car, but I can't work out which one), misspellings of "corrosion" or OCR errors for words like "correction" and "collection". I did find one hit where I think it means "Carotene" (it's a comment about sun tan lotion that does have carotene in it) but it's presently inaccessible due to a server error so I can't verify that. Either way, one hit does not make a plausible misspelling error, especially when it's far more commonly (and plausibly) a spelling error for an entirely different word (corrosion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is an OCR error for carotene -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but like all misspellings, if it's a plausible misspelling or OCR error for multiple words, then it doesn't make a useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There can be exceptions to that, e.g. if one use is very significantly more common in practice than any other, but that isn't the case here. I didn't find any examples of this being an OCR error for "Carotene", indeed it would be an unlikely OCR error (based on my experience) in a couple of ways: while "o" ↔ "n" is quite common, "e" → "n" is uncommon and "r" → "rr" is very unusual. Unlike human misspellings, where substituting single for double letters and vice versa is very common (it's probably the most common type of misspelling I make) OCR errors rarely change the number of vertical strokes, especially in the middle of words, even if they sometimes distribute them wrongly (e.g. "rn" ↔ "m" ↔ "in"). Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per "what is this even a typo of?" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan try reading other people's comments. This doesn't seem to be a typo of anything, but it is a plausible but not overly common misspelling of "corrosion". Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

[edit]

The most common use of symbolism in association with the arts is when a concrete element within a visual, literary, or other work of art is used to represent an abstract idea. Currently, the landing place for that type of symbolism seems to simply be Symbol (15 October UPDATE: I've now made a new landing page for this exact concept: Artistic symbol). "Symbolism" as a specific 19th-century social movement is a much more narrow and obscure usage. Similarly worded redirects (namely Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art) also ought to be redirected accordingly. Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog I'm not certain I understand your nomination. Are you saying that Symbolism (arts) is targetting the correct place, but Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art should be retargetted to match? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time using RFD, so excuse my inexperience but, no, I'm saying it's targeting the wrong place. It's currently targeting Symbolism (movement). Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the target should be the current target of the redirect. I'll fix it and add the other redirects you mentioned to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's useful context. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's never lupus

[edit]

Seems as though these redirect formerly targeted You Don't Want to Know prior to that article being WP:BLARed last year. As it stands, the target article does not mention these phrases, and these phrases seem to be a quote, which may not be too helpful if it's targeting a episode page for a season of a television show. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even I, who never watch the program, know that's a reference to House. There should be a season page which is relevant, if the episode page has been deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
They currently redirect to the most relevant season page, given their previous target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've defended quotations as acceptable {{R without mention}}s before, figuring they can at least answer a reader wondering, "What was that from again?" Without an article on the specific episode that defied the trend, though, redirecting to the season seems more trouble than it's worth, especially given that the only mention of lupus on that page is the instance where it was lupus. Gregory House and House (TV series) seem equally likely targets, and I'd prefer either one over the current target. I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion, though. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion as plausible, and I feel we do have some information... at least on the level of "Where was that quote from/what does that meme refer to?" I'm ambiguous on the target. I actually feel that Restoring the specific episode article that was BLAR'd would be the best target... we have articles on episodes from other shows, and this episode seems particularly notable (I don't even watch the show, never seen even a single episode, and yet even I have heard of this particular episode!). (I do agree that the article, when it was BLAR'd, was overly detailed on the episode summary, but I wish they hadn't resorted to WP:TNT!) Barring that, I'm fine with the current target for now, but would not object to sending it to the character or the series page either. My only strong feeling is that we should keep the redirects and point them to one of these pages, even if I don't mind which as much. Fieari (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. It's a well-known phrase from the show that shows up in its own marketing [35] and in academic literature [36][37][38] There's an AV Club review that mentions that the episode was finally Lupus and there's some articles discussing the phrase [39][40].
-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!(*$

[edit]

Can only be accomplished by holding the shift key during the entirety of typing as it will not occur with caps lock. Unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 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, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redriect to Grawlix, per Thryduulf BugGhost🦗👻 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given it seems to be ambiguous between two bad targets. Cremastra (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 35.139.154.158. No affinity has been shown with this particular 4-character sequence of keyboard symbols than any other similiar potential grawlix sequence. No one seems to be suggesting that this should be done for every, or a subset of (e.g. 1900s), year article(s). Thus, there is no good target. If there is no consensus to delete, prefer current target over suggested retarget per Steel and Rich. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightlike separation

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; brief explanation exists at Lorentz transformation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPD: Searching for the adjective, Special relativity#Invariant interval appears to be a good target. (There should presumably be redirects from lightlike separated, timelike separated and spacelike separated as well.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Why do you think this should have a different target from Lightlike? I don't see how they're distinct. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Causal structure only seems to talk about tangent vectors (and therefore does not mention "separation")... The redirects in the nomination below could point to Special relativity#Invariant interval as well, though that section could also be linking to the causal structure article. It's mostly an issue with how the content is organised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks for explaining. I think lightlike shouldn't redirect to a target that's too specific to discuss non-tangent vectors, then – but that's for the discussion below. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spacelike vector

[edit]

These should point at the same target, but it seems like Causal structure is the most appropriate option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missoes

[edit]

i was going to retarget it back to missões and call it a day, but there's a non-zero chance that that could also apply to some plot points from the guaraní war, the seven peoples of the missions, or some other stuff i might be missing. kinda torn between just retargeting or considering dabifying at missões (in which case i'd probably take that to afd or something with the suggestion of retargeting it to missões, brazil) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget/WP:JUSTDOIT. I would have thought the situation was caused by a bot "fixing" a double redirect after this redirect's target was WP:BLARed which was then reverted, but the timestamps on these pages' edit summaries don't match up. In other words, I am not clear on why the bot performed the edit it did to target the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's even weirder is that this is the second time I've seen such an odd thing happen today. (See here for the other recent instance.) Is there something wrong in recent times with the backend servers retaining edit histories? Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i just realized the outcome of this redirect would have been irrelevant to the possible move discussion regarding missões, and i really could have just retargeted anyway. is this grounds for a mix of withdraw and retarget? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Atoms

[edit]

Not a common or likely misspelling, virtually no incoming targets. If for some reason it is kept, I would say retarget to the John Adams dab page. Otherwise, my vote is Delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/

[edit]

subpage redirect that doesn't actually lead to a subpage. created by a blocked user, who seems to have created a lot of malformed redirects like this cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really related but i just realized this is a redirect to rfd in rfd. ow my brain cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

[edit]

Redundant redirect due to the existence of R v R. Previously redirected to Marital_rape#Ending_the_exemption but I would argue that its still not needed as the case confirmed the end of any exemption. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usurper King

[edit]

There have been plenty of real historical figures described as usurper kings, including in some Wikipedia articles. This redirect is therefore too ambiguous to target to this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not even an old tiktok meme like great king of evil (though i'd nominate that one too, as the meme invariably includes his name). off the top of my head, the wasp king (as in the guy from bug fables) also fits the bill cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S-compact space

[edit]

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [42] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 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, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tebasaki

[edit]

japanese deep fried chicken wing. defined on wiktionary, only mentioned in passing in other articles, and unmentioned in the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this... a case of "thing, japan"? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nagoya cuisine All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murgh

[edit]

created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?
    My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.
    I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)

[edit]

This repetitive redirect is a leftover from a 2015 move to the correctly formatted counterpart. I'm not sure someone would search "cricketer cricketer" rather than just "cricketer," further muddying this thing's plausibility. Regards, SONIC678 05:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can delete "John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)". It must have been set up as either a typo or a joke, and I don't see how it can serve any useful purpose.
Sammyrice (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-chlornaltrexamine

[edit]

The target article is specifically about β-chlornaltrexamine; while there is a cited mention of its isomer α-Chlornaltrexamine at the target, it is generally potentially misleading and confusing to redirect names of different compounds to articles about other specific compounds. Delete these redirects to encourage article creation about the isomer and avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDYES and to avoid confusion per nom. TNstingray (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:JDELANOY

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disaster recovery

[edit]

Should probably more appropriately target Emergency management#Recovery. Many, many links to due to it being from a page move and I don't know which tool to use to automate a fix. Tule-hog (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesty ping to Kvng for any thoughts on the retarget. Tule-hog (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should create Disaster recovery (disambiguation) and redirect there. Why are we at RfD with this? ~Kvng (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only because I have no idea how to handle all the 'links to this page's, feel free to delete this! Disambiguation could be good, but I'm not sure of the guidelines of how many articles are needed to justify it. Tule-hog (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages can be made with only two examples, but more commonly in that situation there's a WP:PTOPIC that we link to first, with a hatnote linking to the other article. If there's three pages to be disambiguated, a DAB page is much more likely, and four nearly assures we'll want a DAB. So it's not a binary black/white thing, but more a gradient.Fieari (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Disaster recovery topics:
~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Started! Would it be possible to automate changing the 'links here' from Disaster recovery to point to IT disaster recovery? (Or maybe thats generally bad form on WP?) Tule-hog (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's a bot that can do that and arguably it won't make things worse. I've done a quick review and there seem to be quite a few instances where the target is wrong. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 9

[edit]

Lists of Pokémon

[edit]

Is this ambiguous or should it be retargeted to List of Pokémon? Web-julio (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While title-wise it's not exactly correct, the end result is pretty harmless; the page Lists about Pokémon starts with a link to the proposed target (List of Pokémon, before listing off quite a few methods of drilling down to more specific Pokémon (i.e. lists by generation), et cetera. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. the Lists about Pokémon is a recreation with other additions, the old page didn't include non-species Pokémon lists. Guessitsavis restored the redirect and I restored the list back and moved to make it less ambiguous. Whether the redirect should be restored or not would be a discussion for AfD, right? Or a merge discussion. Web-julio (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenorite (typeface)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, meaning it's a somewhat misleading redirect for someone searching for the term expecting to find information on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joker persona

[edit]

Delete this is not a parenthetical disambiguator. The target is incorrect. There are multiple articles on personae named Joker listed at Joker (disambiguation), where the normal course would be to have "Joker persona" in a sentence not refer to the "Persona" videogame series. Instead it would say refer to the alternate persona of the character Jack Napier or Arthur Fleck; even "joker persona" is also covered under this redirect, and that could easily refer to the common meaning of joker, a jester, a practical joker. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Cilium

[edit]

Delete - Can't seem to find any relation to the subject? estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4C Untitled Flatiron Nonfiction Summer 2023

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Next king of Denmark

[edit]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid I of Norway

[edit]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next king of Norway

[edit]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon VIII Magnus

[edit]

Delete per this discussion [44] Also no evidence he'll use this name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🆓

[edit]

Free is a DAB, don't see a reason for the emoji specifically to have a PTOPIC. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB page as most helpful to the reader. Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, WY μSA

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn.

Third Lebanon War

[edit]

No evidence that this conflict is known as the "Third Lebanon war", and it isn't even mentioned at target either. CycloneYoris talk! 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources are referring to this as the Third Lebanon War so I'd imagine its a reasonably common search term, besides there is not exactly any other war that could be considered a third lebanon war so anyone searching that is looking for what we redirect them to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of places say invasion and we don't have an official name for it. Don't want people to mix it up with other events because we gave it a name ourselves, that's not the role of Wikipedia. Maybe at some point in the future there will be a name used across the board, but it's not like we have a crystal ball to see that future. I propose that until then we just use the same description in the majority of outlets instead of selective snippets that could be seen as biased. Similar logic was used when discussing "War in Afghanistan" being proposed as 'Afghanistan War' aswell as being used against proposals for the "Covid Recession" being called a bunch of other names and there are more examples in naming of other current events but I dont want to get too far off topic. My point is that right now it's far too early to think about this kind of move and/or redirect. Dasein (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about what the name of the article is or should be, it's solely about whether "Third Lebanon War" is a useful search term for anything, and if so what it is a useful search term for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about redirects, redirects using alternate names. I mean anybody can search for anything using any term or description. The important part is whether or not it's reasonable. I'm making the case that this isn't a relevant term to use for redirects atm. A few niche news articles alongside the rest (which describe it very differently) doesn't seem like it's enough. Besides shouldn't a war have a separate page to this rather than be a redirect? Dasein (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So yes, I stand by my point even if wording could've been handled better. I feel the same reasoning would apply here. If it was a useful search term then it'd be so for anything that follows the invasion, right? Where relations/wider conflict is one thing, current invasion would be an event in said wider conflict, and any subsequent war (not that we have crystal balls) would be another thing with its own page and more apt for having a redirect like this (if it's a commonly used/reasonably assumed search term at the time anyway) I refer back to what I said about the sources used to initially justify it also being an issue which is why I don't think it's a good fit at all right now. Hence my stance currently being Delete. Dasein (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources have described the conflict as such. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but lean retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Otherwise a reasonable search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target is being proposed. Notified of this discussion there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger protest in Nigeria

[edit]

Too vague. I highly doubt that there has been more than one hunger protest in the history of Nigeria. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just as nom stated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Cosmo

[edit]

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Regnery Publishing

[edit]

No mention of any of these titles at the target. Note that I tested the waters with a nomination of a single redirect to this target, found here, in early September. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe if someone searches something that there should be relevant information at the target. In these cases, there is not, as such, I believe they're better left as red links to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the list of publications was deleted, there would be no search results. Not even a red link. Is there a policy or guideline that requires the title be discussed in the target article? I suspect this category of books may be targeted for deletion as part of the ideological bias on Wikipedia. I'm open to deleting the redirects provided a list of the publications exists so that users at least get a result when searching.GobsPint (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GobsPint: It's mostly about common sense. If there's nothing at the target about the redirect (the books), then it's somewhat misleading to somebody who is searching for them and hoping to find relevant information. To be clear, are you implying that I personally have some type of bias in this case? If you'd like to know more about how I came upon these redirects, it's based on my regular WP:NPP work, which is largely centered on redirects. Based on some quarry queries that I run, you had the highest number of unreviewed redirects and the target (Regnery Publishing) had the most unreviewed redirects by target in the queue. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your rataionale. GobsPint (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target. I don't think we want to start redirecting non-notable books to the articles about their publishers without a good reason – there are a lot of non-notable books out there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned (and not an alternative name for the target article's subject) = not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the Donald the Caveman ones (Donald Drains the Swamp, Donald Builds the Wall, and Donald and the Fake News), which have been getting a surprisingly large number of pageviews in their short time of existence even if they're no longer mentioned at the target (but regardless they would still potentially mislead readers). Delete the rest, however—not only are they not mentioned, they also haven't been getting a very large number of pageviews since they were created. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's info about these books on the site when there isn't, and it's a huge amount of clutter to create tons of redirects from non-notable book titles. I second Mx. Granger's argument above mine. Regards, SONIC678 06:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, especially the ones getting more pageviews as if people are searching for them they are more likely to be notable, so WP:REDYES or WP:RFD#D10 may apply in addition to the reasons given above. A7V2 (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will (sociology)

[edit]

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Stadium

[edit]

Appears to be ambiguous based on Category:Sports venues in Boston. The target is also a stadium located in Foxborough, Massachusetts, which is about 35 km southwest of Boston. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Stadium

[edit]

Appears to be ambiguous based on Category:Sports venues in Toronto. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Stadium

[edit]

Seems ambiguous to me based on Category:Sports venues in Dallas. The target is also in Arlington, Texas, not in Dallas. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PVTTIMHALL

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Gamma squeeze

[edit]

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Afghanistan

[edit]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

[edit]

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association

[edit]

No mention at target. Only hit on google is MOSiR Stadium (Stalowa Wola). Cremastra (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no mention at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 25 September 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, CycloneYoris talk! 10:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N3rd

[edit]

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonama dialect

[edit]

No search hits on the target page or on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The placename Yonama (与那間) in Tokunoshima actually exists, so it's probably an undocumented dialect that's only extracted by the existence of the toponym. If that's the case, it can be deleted.
My redirects were taken from a .xlsx spreadsheet concerning metadata of Ryukyuan dialects, which is located in the .zip below.
https://repository.ninjal.ac.jp/records/2000162 Chuterix (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

[edit]

This is the final one of the questionably plausibly misspelled "soundtrack" redirects I'll be listing here for now. This thing used to be a stub article about the soundtrack (the initial version of which can be found here) for seven minutes on July 28, 2008 until it was turned into a redirect for the relevant section of the game's article, then about a month and a half later it was taken to the present target. It also hasn't been getting very many pageviews nowadays, so I'm not really sure we need to keep it lying around. Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the metaphor "lying around" doesn't apply. If you hadn't raised this TfD, this TfD would have got no views, no votes, taken no disk space. It's so much cheaper to leave things like this than to have a discussion about them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 2 October 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, CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:CHEAP and Rich Farmbrough; save for the lack of capitalization (which isn't necessarily an error, given this redir would also scoop up "Soundtack for Guitar Hero World Tour" requests), this redirect has only one error, being, the word 'soundtrack' is missing one letter. We really don't need to worry about this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rich and Lunamann (welcome back LM!) - a redirect should really only be deleted (in my view) if it's pointing to the wrong place or actively doing harm in some way - just being slightly non-standard or unpopular isn't enough justification for deleting a redirect, as they are cheap and could help someone. BugGhost🦗👻 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, soundtrack is not hard to spell, and those 7 minutes of source-less stub should have never existed. Probably minor enough to not need to be nominated at RfD, but if we're here, we're here; this is not a necessary redirect and maintains the idea that "its okay to duplicate topic content at misspelled locations and keep it forever". Sonic678 honestly you probably should've just moved this redirect to a better title imo; it keeps the (admittedly dubious) history, fixes the typo and saves us from having to talk about this one here. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I'll get that taken care of. Regards, SONIC678 21:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le métro de Tony Hawk

[edit]

Apparent mistranslation of the game name into French, possibly intended as a joke. The videogame is not about an underground in the sense of a subsurface rail network. The game was released with the English title in France, and the frwiki article uses the English title. Belbury (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ß-carotin

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Srishti

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Srishti

Jamie Jungers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Jamie Jungers

Mindy Lawton

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. (Normally I just tag these as {{r without mention}}, but I think Redirects from people are a little more urgent.) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention elsewhere on Wikipedia either. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grood

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Used in various meanings across the English Wikipedia, but apart from "Dr. Grood" at The Lost Planet (serial) and Matthew de Grood, these appear to be passing mentions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete to make up for search results. no fitting targets as of now cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrek

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. There is The Carracks, as well as multiple mentions at Critical Role campaign one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asplode

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, but there is a Wiktionary entry at wikt:asplode (which does also mention the full phrase in the quotes). 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget asplode to wikt:asplode, delete the other two, don't explode any heads cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should all three be retargeted or just the first one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGVC (FM)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target, highly implausible search term given parenthetical disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment KGVC appears to be another station owned by Radio Free Palmer. It's even mentioned on their website. The FCC site (link 1) states that the radio station is currently silent, and List of radio stations in Alaska lists it as "defunct." I'm torn between deleting to create an article or redlink or simply adding a mention. There's also KGVC-LP, which I guess could theoretically be an alternate target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment the disambiguator is highly plausible for sequences of four letters starting with W or K as many articles about US radio stations are titled this way. As for this series of letters, it's complicated: This was previously the call sign of a radio station in Alaska, that is now defunct (according to KGVC and List of radio stations in Alaska). KVRF (AKA Big Cabbage Radio) was the parent of and/or is the successor to that station and/or now uses that call sign (different hits on google). Complicating matters is that KGVC-LP was also an FM radio station. Ideally I think this would redirect to the KGVC dab page as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} but unless content is added about the former station in Alaska that is just a single-entry dab page, with no other notable uses found by google (it's not an airport, the post-nominals are actually two separate ones: Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter (KG) and Victoria Cross (VC)). While the low-power (LP) station is the only one we have content about, it's the one with the lowest claim to primary topic status based on Google hits. Confusing me even further for a while was Google including hits for KVGC, a radio station in California, in all my search terms. I'll drop a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Alaska station FID 198603 existed, it nominally was the primary topic, though it never merited an independent article and would have been a redirect to KVRF. The station operated for less than seven years on this license and was functionally replaced by a new facility, KVRK FID 765583 , though Radio Free Palmer at one point intended to move KGVC out to complement its coverage area. (KGVC was shuttered because its tower site was reused for KVRK.) I recommend deleting this redirect, redirecting KGVC to KGVC-LP, and adding a hatnote: "KGVC redirects here. For 91.5 MHz in Glacier View, Alaska (2015–2022), see KVRF." (That article needs adjusting to even mention KVRK.) I also recommend redirecting KVRK to KVRF and instituting this hatnote there: "KVRK redirects here. For 89.7 MHz in Sanger, Texas (2004–2015), see KAWA (FM)." We need in this field to make more use of hatnotes to substitute TWODABS that nobody truly needs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good solution. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Takoma

[edit]

Though this redirect is mentioned in the target article, I believe this redirect would be better targeting a non-fictional target: retarget to North Takoma station or weak retarget to North Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington. Otherwise, disambiguation may be necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as no primary topic – North Takoma station is an acceptable partial title match, and I don't think a briefly-mentioned fictional place is likely to be primary over a real station with its own article. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist High School

[edit]

This redirect was created by moving Methodist High School, Kanpur away from the title, but I really don't think the primary topic of "Methodist High School" is this one particular Methodist high school. (One could argue that it's WP:DIFFCAPS, but I'm not sure.) The best target I can find for the general concept of Methodist high schools is Christian school § Methodist, but it's a very short section that doesn't mention high schools in particular. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB page - looks like there's a lot of schools that have similar names with articles, and the Kanpur school is not the primary topic here. BugGhost🦗👻 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios

[edit]

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.
BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.
Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.
"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.
"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.
In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.
14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.
"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.
There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.
Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.
Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.
"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.
You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.
"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.
That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...
Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.
The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
    Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).
2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.
So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.
As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.
Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.
We are left with three options:
  1. Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
  2. Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
  3. Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).
Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.
It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrBro

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; only a passing mention exists at Karl Jacobs. (Also, I'm not sure what exactly Cewbot's edits to the redirect were "fixing", but the page has been "reminded" twice of a broken anchor.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diffusion semigroup

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Science

[edit]

This is not the only "Year of Science" in existence, and such an WP:XNR can be confusing. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Alston

[edit]

The target article mentions John Alston a single time, with no further information on Alston as a subject beyond his being an early colonist of Victoria. John Alston could conceivably be turned into its own page, or if not sufficiently notable, given a full section on tactile alphabet. That section could make mention of his being an early Victorian colonist. I propose deletion of the redirect altogether. While retargeting it to tactile alphabet would be better than the current target (especially if given his own section), as is, it wouldn't necessarily be better than the current redirect. Notably, of a random sampling of the colonists listed on The Explorers and Early Colonists of Victoria, I didn't find others that redirected there (or at all); there's no indication why John Alston has special treatment here. In favour of changing the redirect: Alston is one of 713 colonists in the photograph, whereas he is one of 9 names mentioned in the list of tactile alphabets based on roman letters. At least in terms of proportion, he seems more notable as a tactile alphabet inventor than as an early colonist of Victoria. Sarayourfriend (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other discussions about redirects (my first time delving into this part of Wikipedia), I think what I've touched on above is WP:XY and it's best to just delete the redirect. Whether Alston is more notable as a tactile alphabet creator or for his presence in the Early Colonists of Victoria photograph is ambiguous, retargeting the redirect is meaningless if neither page goes into more than a single detail about him regardless. Sarayourfriend (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a stub for less than an hour before being BLARed by a user other than the creator to the target on the basis of WP:1E. It might be worth restoring that article without prejudice to AfD given that the nominator has raised the possibility of this person being notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 8

[edit]

The Red Palace

[edit]

Thanks to the "The", a book The Red Palace is the primary topic for this title, so this seems like a WP:REDYES WP:PLA situation. Cremastra (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2024 Cornell

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

[edit]

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [47]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Facebook

[edit]

If a reader typing predictions of t into the search bar (after seeing such an article for Google or Wikipedia) stumbles upon a page like Predictions of the end of X which redirects to X social media platform, they may be given the potentially false impression that the article on X may contain information about such predictions and may end up wasting their time scrolling through the article only to potentially conclude that no such information may be present. Sure, they were "merged" into their respective articles, but their poor usefulness is still a problem. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Speedy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Highlights

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Engineering

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

First Americans

[edit]

Hm. First American only links Indigenous peoples of the Americas, though maybe should link Peopling of the Americas as well; if not, then the plural "First Americans" should be considered unambiguous given the other disambiguation page entries. The last redirect points at a series of historical fiction books, which is probably not the primary topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese opera

[edit]

Suggest deletion: the target article does not mention opera. The topic of Japanese opera is likely a notable one and this should be red link per WP:RED Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-is, this redirect is incredibly confusing: it brings the unsuspecting reader to a page that says nothing about opera. That said, what did the searcher expect to find? An opera company or theater in Japan? An opera written by a Japanese composer? A native Japanese opera-like theater genre? Garbage in, garbage out, we should not answer an open-ended question with a random response or even a collection of these. Викидим (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what they would have expected to find is presumably something fitting in Category:Opera by country. So maybe garbage out, but definitely not garbage in. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that this interpretation is the most plausible. Alas, we do not have a text similar to French Opera. Викидим (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology

[edit]

R with history. No mention of Baba Saheb, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See [48] from the university's site. Relevant section: "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Etawah was established during the year 1994-95. This college is a faculty of Technology of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur-U.P." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Add Mention - A list of all colleges contained within this university would be warranted for the article. Assuming notability has already been established, using a primary source for basic information about itself shouldn't be remiss. Fieari (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Batman

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Shady Sheehy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete.

Pokémon Fushigi no Dungeon Red (plus that other one)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alicia Douvall

[edit]

A redirect here is not appropriate as it could also redirect to Celebrity Love Island. I vote to delete the redirect to encourage article creation. Launchballer 16:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was an article before it was turned into a redirect in 2017 and still gets 20 hits per day. Deletion would remove the history. And although her name is listed and linked in the Love Island article, what little info there is about her is in a paragraph in the Celebrity Big Brother article. Station1 (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Index

[edit]

I'm not sure how primary the Economist index is for the title-case name, but these should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Democracy Index: I too am not sure how primary the Economist index is. On the one hand one could say that a generic term should point to the general article rather than an article about one particular index (though to be pedantic, the generic term would be "Democracy index", not "Democracy Index"). On the other hand, I can think of reasons why keeping the present redirect might be better. The article Democracy indices mentions a number of indices, but the Economist Democracy Index is the only one containing the expression "Democracy Index", which could be taken as indicating that it's a primary meaning, as it is probably the one most likely to be searched for under those words. There's also the fact that the redirect Democracy Index was created by moving the article which is now titled The Economist Democracy Index, but which had been at Democracy Index for 16 years (apart from a period of 32 minutes when a disruptive editor moved it to another title, and it got moved back quickly) so changing the redirect title could break links. There are currently 588 internal links to it, and there may be external links, or links on individual users' computers or whatever. taking into account all of those considerations, I am in favour of keeping the redirect Democracy Index → The Economist Democracy Index.
(2) Democrasy Index: This is an almost pointless redirect. It has had 2 views in the last 30 days (compared to 9,892 for Democracy Index. I therefore don't think it matters a lot what happens to it. However, "Democrasy Index", unlike "Democracy Index", is not contained in the title of any particular index, so there isn't any particular index with any claim to be a primary meaning. There's also a case for saying that in the absence of a strong reason for doing otherwise it's better to leave it where it is, because someone somewhere may expect it to be there, though in this case that's an extremely weak case. My conclusion is that, as I said above, it doesn't matter a lot what happens to this redirect, but on balance I just about prefer leaving it where it is.
(3) I don't find the argument that the redirects should both point to the same target convincing at all. There's no reason why what happens if someone searches for one title should be influenced by what would have happened if they had searched for the other.
WP:TLDR abbreviated version: Keep them both as they are. JBW (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tighten

[edit]

let's try this again... closed before with no consensus, with votes torn between... everything, really. opinions? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, my vote will be to retarget to tight cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. My view has not changed since the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I acknowledge I was pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with a Delete vote, although I'm okay with both the idea of retargeting or hatnoting to Tight. Either way, this shouldn't stay as-is, for the extremely simple fact that anyone looking for the extremely common English verb would be heavily astonished to find themselves here-- I struggle to think of a way that Megamind, the movie, is more notable than the English language word that it references as a joke. If we stay at Megamind, it needs a hatnote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoki Tanisaki

[edit]

This redirect is unnecessary and misleading as this alternative name stems from a misunderstanding of Japanese spelling. When Onodera impersonated Naoki Tanizaki, he used a different kanji spelling for his name; it didn't change the way the name wad read and shouldn't change how it's transcribed. MordecaiXLII (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to retarget the redirect Naoki Tanisaki → Naoki Tanizaki, per common mispellings under WP:POFR, which includes "Likely misspellings" as reasons to create redirects. The Kanji 崎 and 嵜 are both read as "さき" (saki), anyway, so it should be categorized as a possible mispelling for Tanizaki.
I do agree with the nom that there is no reason for it to be redirecting to T-Hawk (wrestler), though. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 03:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of swears

[edit]

No such list at the target; we shouldn't suggest readers that we do. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd normally recommend deletion... would it be a bad idea to simply redirect to Seven Dirty Words? It's not a list of literally all English-language profanity, but it is at least a list of some profanity. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be a good redirect, as that list is significantly narrower than the search term - for example it omits all non-English swear words (of which we have multiple lists). Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I still advocate for creating a list of lists... since we do have all those lists. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is scope for some sort of list of lists, and nothing in this RfD prevents an editor from creating one, but the title of that list of lists wouldn't be "List of swears". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansem

[edit]

weird case, bordering on nonsensical. read at your own risk, this is the most simple and clean way i can possibly put it. "ansem" refers to two characters in kingdom hearts. one is a nerd who likes cosplaying as a mummy, listed here, and the other is a xehanort who stole the name because boys will be boys i guess. the xehanort seems to be the primary topic (if only because he popped up first and is hotter), but not by much, and kh discourse pretty often disambiguates things by referring to the latter as "ansem, (the) seeker of darkness" (or sod) and the former as "ansem the wise". this title has previously been used for redirects for both ansems and a dab for... both ansems (plus two people who were mistaken for an ansem for a few seconds each). opinions on... really, anything? cogsan (χ-BLADE!) (ouchie ouch) 17:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and add hatnote or retarget to list of KH characters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Häxans förbannelser

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Towel Trick

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3RL

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:VB

[edit]

A shortcut redirect from Wikipedia namespace to a navigational template doesn't make much sense. This should probably be retargeted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rabila railway station

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Obstipation

[edit]

Term not mentioned nor defined at target. Even though it is similar to "Constipation", it appears to be an entirely different and more severe condition. CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

from some quick looking, i haven't found a good enough target for that aside from maybe bowel obstruction (where it's also unmentioned). would soft redirecting to wikt:obstipation work for now? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that this term "obstipation" is very, very rare compared to acute bowel obstruction (which seems to be the "modern" equivalent term, but that is my impression only and not a reliable source).
The dictionary definitions gave along the lines of "severe + acute constipation", and it even sounds like a medical emergency. Therefore on the basis of those dictionary definitions I changed the link from obstructed defecation which was imo inappropriate (the latter is a chronic condition, not a medical emergency) and also unsourced. Moribundum (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Chabloz

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cards Against Disney

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enigmatic Man

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mr. Bland

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Affine cone

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Rio Este (desambiguacion)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gedko Powało

[edit]

This is a spelling mistake: proper name for the article is Gedko Sasinowic, proper name for the redirect ist Gedko Powała. My request for a speed deletion was reverted [50] Herzog von Teschen (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling Gedko Powalo into the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 06:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vocational education and training centers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Vocational education and training centers

King Roland

[edit]

Either disambiguate or redirect to List of Sofia the First characters, and target Roland I and Roland II to it, and Minimus is likely mentioned in the nominated target page. Also, I drafted Minimus (disambiguation), but it needs an improvement for the horse character. 88.235.230.49 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Four targets have been proposed by participants. Retarget to any one of them, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiro sAGISU

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shamrock Airport

[edit]

Targets a list-class article that contains no specific information about the subject. The subject itself seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases, so it is unlikely that the redirect will ever warrant replacement with a full-blown article. Carguychris (talk) 19:17, 30 September 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, CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

[edit]

As talked with TechnoSquirrel69, would these be problematic? Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

refine the second to list of gen 1 pokémon#meowth, find a way to trout redirects and trout the rest for existing (optional) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang1

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banana Guard

[edit]

Banana Guard appears as a unique fighter in MultiVersus. However, Banana Guard is not mentioned at the target article, and therefore misleads readers who navigate to this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled. Jay 💬 06:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banapassport

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Billy Rowan

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Charlotte Bishop

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Decco Bishop

[edit]

No entry at the target page, only appears within a reference. Nothing really encyclopedic about this person. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Thanks for the tip on the mention; imo that's still WP:SURPRISEing though (at the Fair City subsection), especially if the material changes and the mention disappears, then we'll be left with an unhelpful redirect while that occurs. If people are searching for a character, I'd think they'd expect to end up at a list of characters. This still feels niche enough to delete as the character appears to be exceedingly minor from what I'm seeing. Can always be recreated if there's an entry that gets created later. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlockParty (game portal)

[edit]

No mention of a feature called "blockparty" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled. Jay 💬 06:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boussh

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burin en-bec-de-flute

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

January 1, 2003

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per #7 October 2023 below, cc Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4:, do you know how many others like this are out there? I definitely misspoke in my previous nomination. I was thinking this in the previous nomination, but honestly, it might be nice to create a category for "date redirects" to easily monitor and maintain the targets of these and similar titles, but I wasn't sure the total scope and how many of such redirects exist at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes, I've bundled the remaining four redirects into this nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking through the histories of these and other discussions, I am not surprised all of these have been nominated at RfD before, including from myself. As an example, for May 5th 2020, which was discussed here in this 2021 discussion, Tavix was involved in the RfD, and cited 06/06/06 as being a "past precedent" of targeting Portal pages. However 06/06/06 no longer points at the Portalspace (it targets 2006#June), so the argument of precedent in that situation falls flat. The other early discussion in 2017 for October 10, 2010, was closed as NO consensus, implying that it is not a consensus. (This situation was no consensus to target away from Portal space, but was later followed by a subsequent RfD in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#April 9, 2011, where there was no consensus to target TO portal space, which cited and was cited by the previous "no consensus" result in both.)
For the remaining two dates in January 2023, I nominated them here under the premise that there is no mainspace coverage for these dates, and wished for them to be deleted. Jay requested my comment towards Tavix's proposal of retargeting to Portal space, (which I would have otherwise disagreed with due to no substantial & lasting precedent of individual dates sticking around for long at portal targets) and 14 minutes later the discussion was closed by Rosguill as retarget. The fact that these have all been to RfD before on multiple occasions each implies that there is some level of disagreement and NOT a set-in-stone precedent on what to do, especially when titles such as January 6th, 2021 (which, upon re-examining, actually has a different target than January 6 2021, and 1/6/21 and 1/6/2021), which (all) imply to readers that typing in a date into the mainspace search-bar will result in a mainspace outcome. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to January 2003. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the others; they should also be retargeted to their respective year/month articles in main space. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more likely that someone going to Wikipedia to search a date is likely trying to find encyclopedic content in mainspace, related to the date they inputted into Wikipedia. Not a list of WikiProject-handpicked stories that happened that day. If someone wants to know "what happened on January 2nd, 2003", they'd ask a Google Search for a more summative assessment. What do you mean by "creating the rest"? Utopes (talk / cont) 05:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The portal does in fact link to encyclopedic content in mainspace related to that day. I'm not sure why you think a Google search would give a more summative assessment, that's rather-famously the major downside to Google searches—they dump an assortment of results that may or may not be useful. (So much so that Google has begun to give AI summaries in an effort to be more useful to someone who wants a quick answer...) On the other hand, a curated list of encyclopedic events is much more useful to someone wanting to know what happened on a given day. And the fact that they are curated by a 'project' of Wikipedia editors is even better because these are people who are experienced with this task. -- Tavix (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 7

[edit]

IMAX theatre at iSQUARE

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

2001 attacks

[edit]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

[edit]

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaface

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Pizzaface

Everitt E Boat

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Boston's best variety

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

20 Years of Noise 1985–2005

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ashchf Lshtshfum

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Geoffrey Chalmers

[edit]

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [51] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Keith, fuck these niggas up!

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Donald Trump as rhetorician

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

FZDO

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Aero blue

[edit]

There is no mention of Aero blue in the target page. ... discospinster talk 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It existed when the redirect was created (see [52]), though it was un-cited and a fairly poor description, and the also see seems to point to a fairly different color, so it's not surprising if someone deleted that section (and forgot to look for redirects to it) in the intervening 11 years. :) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That version linked to Air Force blue, which also does not mention "Aero blue" currently. Plus it's azure, not cyan! So changing the redirect won't help. ... discospinster talk 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. The mention at the target was removed — can it be restored with a source? Any other possible target articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Wpedia

October 6

[edit]

Scared Shitless

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William B. Cox

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Rush Limbaugh/Chicom

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Britney Spears 7th studio album (Britney Spears album)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:MBTI Instrument

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore templates

Minister for Cities

[edit]

Not sure if this is the best target as Minister for Cities (Australia) exists - also not sure if that is the best title for that article either. I'm not familiar with the recent political cabinet reshuffling so there might be content forking between the current target and Minister for Cities (Australia). Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree – if that's the primary topic, it should be moved to the title "Minister for Cities", and if it's not the primary topic then "Minister for Cities" shouldn't redirect there. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions seems split between creating a disambiguation page at the base title, or claiming Minister for Cities (Australia) is the primary topic. (Either way, seems a disambiguation page needs to be created somewhere ... but is that "somewhere" the base title or a title ending with "(disambiguation)"?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per CFA, I also think that the title is too ambiguous and generic to have a primary topic - the Australian one might be "extant" per DilatoryRevolution as of right now, but this could change in the future as political portfolios get shuffled around fairly often. Fork99 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the September 16 log no longer shows up at the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Music Invasion

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List over Swedish Artists by Albums and Singles Sold

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Dota 2 heroes

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Online education

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Online education

Footman Frenzy

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

26, November, 2006

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#26, November, 2006

January 3, 2003

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Undermine (Warcraft)

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 September 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) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

===Undermine===
The Undermine is believed to be the home island of the goblins, and is ruled by the Goblin Princes of Trade who hold their slave pens and palaces there. Undermine exists partially on the world's surface, but most of it is underground. It is primarily a series of volcanic caverns, tunnels and chambers that span out of the Isle of Kezan through the ocean floor, connecting to adjacent smaller islands to the west. Aside from the goblins and their slaves, the tunnels are also inhabited by a strange breed of purple-skinned goblins named hobgoblins. They are larger than regular goblins and they rarely live to three years of age. They were created by alchemical experiments on goblin subjects during the Second War.
The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of December 2008, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series.
The majority of media in the Warcraft universe takes place upon a planet called Azeroth. This planet has threefour continents, named the Eastern Kingdoms, Kalimdor, Northrend (the world's polar cap) and Undermine (considered home land of the Goblins)...
The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of March 2009, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series. Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine.
The Goblin continent of Undermine, has yet to be visited in any entry of the Warcraft series.
  • This was removed again @16:25, 25 August 2009: "as stated before... undermine is not a continent, and the number of major landmasses has not yet been decided due to the fact that there are unknown lands where pandarens and maybe more".
  • Text was changed @16:28, 25 August 2009:
Azeroth has four three known continents... Two other major islands are Kezan (where the Goblin city Undermine is located, introduced in WoW:Cataclysm) and Zandalari
Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine. the various goblin business cartels based out of the city of Undermine now supply both factions, though they have closer ties with the Horde.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to finally close the September 12 log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texvc

[edit]

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency

[edit]

not mentioned at target (in over 10 years) seems to be created for listing at dab FAI as the only user, but I'm removing that dab entry as it fails WP:DABACRO and wouldn't be used anyway due to incorrect capitalisation. Widefox; talk 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an index [53], that could indeed be listed at FAI. The capitalisation *seems* to be correct, although I'm not sure why the authors chose to capitalise it this way. In other sources [54] [55], sentence case seems to be preferred. I don't think there's enough information to write an article, but it might merit a mention at the target. Cremastra (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies already for the wall-of-text input:
The term (with same sort-of-dopey captialization) was indeed added in 2014 (by the redirect's creator) and still present up until a reworking in late July 2021. I have taken the liberty of re-adding the mention, as I discern no reason for its removal (made by an editor inactive since 2023). Per Cremestra and the mention in several papers, it seems notable enough for a mention at the target as well as the FAI dab page.
I'm dubious as to the usefulness of the redirect due to its length, although it comes up nicely as the only choice when I type in "Feel status". However, if we keep it, I'd like to change the caps; although correctly matching the original 2014 paper's use, it's different on both the 2016 [2] and 2020 [3] papers mentioned by Cremestra. I personally prefer the last, from Social Science & Medicine, which uses hyphens, which seems (of the three styles) most easily understandable and conformant to English usage (and therefore what I used when restoring the text). In one paper's reviews Zaccagni (original paper's lead researcher) acknowledged a lack of facility with English (though the caps weren't explicitly mentioned); I don't know how much leeway we have in choosing a style. I do think it an unlikely capitalization for a WP user to type in, so I would lean toward Keep, but sentence-case it. It just looks wrong otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has been added back to the target, but participants have been unsure about the capitalization of the redirect title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farage riots

[edit]

Negative redirect not mentioned in the target article. A quick Google search doesn't seem to show that is a common term. Borderline speedy deletion candidate. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My quick google search showed that this is very much a term that has been used in reliable sources [56][57][58][59] and sources that may or may not be reliable (I've not looked in detail) [60][61][62][63] (and also a use in The London Economic titled "Farage Riots trend as Reform UK kick off conference" the filter won't let me link to). Many of the uses in both sets are quoting Nigel Farage complaining about others using the term, some of them attribute the term to him. I'm not sure whether a mention of the term at either the rioting article or Nigel Farage's article is due, but it's not a suggestion that can be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the due diligence, but I won't withdraw my nomination unless it is mentioned in the article... non-neutral redirects without sources seems like a BLP violation, doesn't it? -1ctinus📝🗨 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsthump is a satirical website, but the first four sources seem reliable (the Instagram link being a broadcast interview on LBC radio). I've also heard this phrase being used on podcasts and in the media, and the stats[64] seem to show people are searching for it, I think it's a keep. Orange sticker (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. I created this redirect not out of agreement with the term, but rather because I had seen the name used to refer to these riots frequently at the time on social medias and on some reliable (and less reliable) news sites, as Thryduulf found. The term is certainly biased, I do admit that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around redirects. My rationale was simply to help readers who may know these riots as the Farage Riots to get to the appropriate article.
Anyway, I understand your reason for proposing deletion. I personally do not have enough knowledge on the subject of the article to integrate mention of this nickname in a well written manner. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for editing! Mittzy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target or to Nigel Farage. Notified of this discussion at the two pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabage truck

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mick Armstrong

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong

October 5

[edit]

NeoCitran

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Relgion in the High Middle Ages

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moved without redirect

National Sports Administration

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#National Sports Administration

Aušautas

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diedievaite

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Aušlavis

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Karorius

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Whoopsie daisy

[edit]

Not mentioned at target (except in the hatnote). No other words redirect to this target and there is no list of words here (except for a few examples in the Vocabulary section). Per this article, both words are variants of Upsy daisy, which is a redirect to In the Night Garden.... Johnj1995 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 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, CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I actually think the current target is appropriate. If someone wants to know what "whoopsie daisy" means, being directed to the Baby talk article is all the explanation that really needs. (Kinda wish the article had the more formal "Child directed speech" title, but that's neither here nor there...) Fieari (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary plausible search term but not related to article. Wiktionary seems appropriate -1ctinus📝🗨 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although babies may not understand. In a perfect Wikipedia this may be redirected to Notting Hill, where Hugh Grant said it either as a scripted or unscripted word as a minor although interesting plot point. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Oopsie-daisy" to Oopsy Daisy as a plausible misspelling. Delete "Whoopsie daisy" for having no good target. A randomish example of baby talk shouldn't redirect there, any more than it should redirect to some variant of 'mistake'. And strongly oppose redirecting to Wikitionary, which inhibits searching within Wikipedia, and such a search result includes a link to the Wikt entry right at the top already anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk, In the Night Garden..., and Oopsy Daisy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target has turned up after the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Otherwise, only appears to occur in references on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:19, 14 August 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) 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Dabify? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Disambiguating purely on a subtitle (or part of a subtitle) screams of WP:PTM violations. Could any of the works be referred to solely as 'A Feminist Perspective'? If not, then there is no reason for someone to search using the phrase to find that work. -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, a credible case for notability has been made below. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history of Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders in case there is support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AFD. Neutral It appears that the article was unilaterally turned into a redirect rather being sent through the formal deletion process. I suspect it'll fail AfD for non-notability, but we should follow the correct procedures. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tevildo please cite the procedure(s) in question, as i still haven't found anything that states that blars have to be taken to afd for the same reason they got in rfd (and sorry for the ping) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual text of WP:BLAR is "If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history [and subsequently sent to AfD]", without specifiying who those other editors are or how they're supposed to express their disagreement (and, furthermore, is not grammatical as it stands - the blanking doesn't have "contents", the article does - but this isn't really relevant). There isn't anything that I can immediately see at WP:RFD#KEEP or WP:DEL-PROCESSES that states an uncontested BLAR is equivalent to an uncontested PROD; if this is the case, we perhaps should add the appropriate text to one of these locations. I agree we can save time in this particular case by deleting the redirect and its history, but, without an explicit guideline, I still believe that removal of substantive content should be discussed at the appropriate venue (AfD or PROD) rather than RfD, which involves the removal of "technical" content only. Tevildo (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tevildo: You didn't quite summarize the text you put in brackets correctly. The actual text there is other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The such as signifies that AfD is one example of a way to resolve the dispute. RfD is method of dispute resolution, thus it is also a proper venue for handling a BLAR. The guidance at WP:RFD you're seeking is actually the very first sentence: Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is a potentially problematic redirect, thus this is the correct forum to discuss it. If you think the content may be notable then a restore !vote would be valid. But "restore and send to AfD" simply because "it's the correct procedure" is not appropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    d*ng i got outsped cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    long boring answer: i disagree. as discussed before (read that at your own risk, it's not anyone's finest moment), wp:blar actually only uses restoring and sending to afd as an example of something that can be done (see the use of "such as"), which, at its absolute worst, doesn't disqualify blars from being taken to rfd
    it does not, however, say anything about already ongoing discussions, like... this one, because using rfd for something that is currently a redirect is Cool and Good, as rfd is for redirects of any kind and frequented by people who are no less capable of evaluating blar content than afd regulars (but also that cogsan guy, i hear he's a stinkyhead), and taking blars already deemed not notable to afd would just clutter things by reenacting a discussion and restoring unsourced content
    short answer: this is a redirect, it can be discussed here, even if it has history, though the history isn't looking too keepable cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I understand. I still think we should make it explicit somewhere that BLAR > RfD is a valid alternative to PROD, rather than having to infer it from terms like "problematic". I'm not expressing any further opinion on this particular item. Tevildo (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does PROD have to do with this? -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i could get behind having more than one example in wp:blar, but even after that one discussion, i'm still not sure what prod has to do with this cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and in the meantime, delete all (not anymore lmao cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)) per[reply]
  • wp:rfd#delete, criterion 2: the book and feminism in general are not mentioned in the article
  • wp:gng (feat. sigcov): from some looking, i haven't been able to find independent info on the book. only the book itself for sale on amazon and an article about fat feminism written in some indecipherable glyphs
  • wp:rfd#delete, criterion 10: admittedly dabbling in wishful thinking, but i don't think the book doesn't stand a chance of being notable someday, though that day isn't today
and delete the third one in particular as vague, as feminists might have perspectives at least one other thing (maybe even more) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the book redirects to an article, from a search on ProQuest (google search is incredibly, incredibly bad at finding book reviews) the book has several reviews from various academic journals and passes WP:NBOOK. I have no opinion on the third one. I will add the sources if no one else wants to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
show sauce pwease :3 cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan i am unbelievably lazy and on my phone so i will be copying the proquest headings
  • Bookshelf -- Feminist perspectives on eating disorders edited by Patricia Fallon, Melanie A. Katzman and Susan C. Wooley ; London Vol. 344, Iss. 8932, (Nov 5, 1994): 1284.
  • Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders ; New York Vol. 26, Iss. 2, (Summer 1998): 242-243.
  • Book Reviews: Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders. Edited by Fallon, Patricia, Katzman, Melanie and Wooley, Susan. New York: Guilford Press. 1994. 465 pp. £25.00 (hb). ; London Vol. 166, Iss. 5, (May 1995): 692-693. DOI:10.1192/S0007125000074924
  • Books and resources -- Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders edited by Patricia Fallon, Melanie Katzman and Susan Wooley  ; Hettinger Vol. 8, Iss. 3, (May 1994): 57.
  • Book reviews -- Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders edited by Patricia Fallon, Melanie A. Katzman and Susan S. Wooley  ; Roslyn Heights Vol. 29, Iss. 115, (Fall 1994): 748.
  • Psychology -- Feminist perspectives on eating disorders edited by Patricia Fallon, Melanie A. Katzman and Susan C. Wooley ; Middletown Vol. 31, Iss. 10, (Jun 1994): 1658.
  • Book reviews -- Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders edited by P. Fallon, M. A. Katzman and S. C. Wooley ; Oxford Vol. 36, Iss. 6, (Sep 1995): 1098.
  • Uneasy embodiment -- Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders edited by Patricia Fallin, Melanie A. Katzman, and Susan C. Wooley / Understanding Eating Disorders edited by Leann Alexander-Mott and D. Barry Lumsden ; Cambridge Vol. 19, Iss. 2, (Jun 1995): 293.
All are reviews
This is just proquest. There are definitely more reviews, and NBOOK requires 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then would putting this nom on hold until someone has the time (and proquest) to go through the reviews to write something around them be a good idea? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan I would do that but AFAIK I can't do anything to the redirect unless it is closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
drafting things during rfd time is standard practice. can't name examples of articles being drafted off the top of my head (yars rising might not count, the rfd templates were removed on the spot), but dabs are drafted all the time. thus, i'm 50% absolutely certain that drafting an article would be fine. on the off chance that this ends up not being the case, there's still no harm in a draft (as in a draftspace draft, not a "mainspace during xfd" draft, feel i should clarify that) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan voila. Not very comprehensive, there's a lot that can be mined from the reviews, but this says what the book covers and people's praise and criticism for it, which is a lot better than the old article, which said nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haha yes cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
articleify parakanyaa's draft. no opinions in the "keeping the old edit history" department cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priestess of the Moon

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. And not even correct if it were - Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos is the original use, and Tyrande Whisperwind before her article was BLARed would also have been reasonable. But none of those mention it either. Maybe retarget to Moon magic or Lunar deity as a last-ditch genericization, but that's well, grabbing desperately to see if anything sticks so I would just delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lunar deity. There are some works that claim Priestess of the Moon as the protagonist. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems apropos per nom. IznoPublic (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Enheduanna who was (high) priestess of the moon (god). The only uses of the phrase on en.wp are in relation to her. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search results are almost all about the game character [65], in fact, I'm struggling to find anything not related to the game [66]. Leaning delete. If the capitalisation were different, I'd be more inclined to retarget, but it isn't, so I'm not. Cremastra (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget (where to?) or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history in case there is support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lunar deity, the actual page that Moon deity redirects to. We're not alleging that the lunar deity IS the priestess; we're alleging that a "priestess of the Moon" would likely worship one of the deities mentioned at Lunar deity, and thus, that the information presented at Moon deity is the most relevant information to the given search. It also serves as a bit of a disambiguator-- if the searcher wanted specifically a priestess of, say, Artemis, the Lunar deity page links to Artemis, where the reader can read about the arktoi at the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, three too many hoops to jump through. No mention of "priestess" at lunar deity, nor is there discussion of anyone, priests or priestesses who worship such a deity (besides cultures "having moon gods"). A priestess is not a lunar deity so there is little affinity. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Angligena

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Nerubian

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned once in passing at Mummy (undead) and at World of Warcraft: The War Within but neither of those have enough substance to support a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 4 September 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) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More options came up after the 2nd relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional-functional syllabus

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Esyllabus

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

AMA (Reddit)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Physical Impossibility Of Dolphins In The Mind Of Someone Living

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

VVikipedia

[edit]
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

T:WPMHA

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#T:WPMHA

Big Yud

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Helen Justine Ferris

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

USS Dory (SS-352)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Allan Cerda

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 11#Allan Cerda

Hérita N'Kongolo Ilunga

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

October 2

[edit]

Symbolism (arts)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Symbolism (arts)

It's never lupus

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#It's never lupus

!(*$

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#!(*$

Muhajir Province

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Usurper King

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Usurper King

S-compact space

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#S-compact space

Tebasaki

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Tebasaki

HJE

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Ingokho

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chikkin

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Murgh

Ramlochan Vishwakarma (Sanwariya)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Trial (TV series)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sqecial relativity

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Special relativity (simplified)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lightlike separation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Lightlike separation

Spacelike vector

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Spacelike vector

Missoes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Missoes

DcVD

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

Edward Johnson (footballer, born 1860)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Jigarthanda (sountrack)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

Soundracks and sountracks

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Unmentioned Suikoden characters

[edit]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all (applies to the above nominations as well; will C&P over there if necessary but it'll be the same discussion) per criterion 1 (these were all merged) and criterion 5 (they're useful - e.g. links from a disambig page or just searches on a character). It's also at least possible that the character lists could be brought back some day with better independent sourcing. Useful and harmless, best to let lie IMO. (See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11#Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_V for an example character list that was redirected, the redirect was nominated for deletion, the RFD failed and the page history was kept, and the article indeed came back later.) SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a distinction between redirects which refer to the characters as a concept, like the discussion you linked to, redirects which refer to the characters as a list, and redirects which refer to individual characters. Suikoden characters or Characters of Suikoden would be fine as redirects based on the precedent you linked to (which I agree with), because the target does contain some discussion of the characters as a concept. List of characters in Suikoden is harmful because its existence misleadingly implies that the target contains, well, a list of characters in Suikoden, which it doesn't, thereby leaving any user confused.
    Redirects for individual characters likewise are harmful because they misleadingly imply Wikipedia has some content on the character when it doesn't.
    And in particular they're not useful for links on a disambiguation page because any such usage would fail WP:DABMENTION, and the fact that it would fail that guideline is hidden from most of its enforcers who probably don't check for this.
    And I don't think either part of WP:R#K1 actually applies - the history of most of these is Fandom-style content which is worse that starting from scratch if you were to try to build an article on one of the characters, and nothing needs to be legally kept since nothing was merged any further than the lists that I also think should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of characters in Suikoden contains significant page history that will be relevant if someone ever wants to attempt to restore these articles, and/or merge content from it. "Significant page history" is specifically a keep criterion at RFD. There's nothing misleading here at all: that was an article if someone follows some old links in the page history, and a redirect is the proper handle for it. Same for specific characters. There's no problem at all, and the standard at RFD is just "it's useful." I'm not saying that every single tiny piece of cruft has to be kept, if someone were to run around making redirects for every ability name or dungeon, but these all have non-trivial page histories and some of them are prominent characters where a redirect is useful (keep criterion 5).
    Would it change things if I said that I, personally, would find the page history useful? Because don't get me wrong, I do think that some of the list articles should come back, I just didn't want to bother fighting it out at a potential AFD unless I were to acquire sources that are probably in Japanese. But as the FF5 example shows, this absolutely can happen. I've worked on "serious" non-video gaming articles that were in weak, unsourced states, and generally the existing content - however problematic it was - was absolutely not worse than nothing, it was often quite helpful. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see redirects as based on the present, not the past - it's misleading to have a "list of Xs" redirect that points to a page where there is no list of Xs. It's misleading to have a redirect point to a place where no discussion of the term being redirected exists. I think we're coming from points of view sufficiently different that neither of us will convince the other one of our position, so I'll leave it at that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, but this isn't just solely a matter of opinion with no right answer and just consensus. The RFD keep criteria are pretty explicit that "non-trivial page history" is indeed a reason to keep as is "useful to someone saying it's useful in good faith", both of which are met here. The characters of Suikoden are discussed in the relevant articles, if not to the depth the list formerly did. And just solely as a matter of practicality, rather than spend busywork deleting the redirects and requesting them to be recreated in userspace or the like, why not just let all the old redirects spring back to life if someone did write a modern-Wikipedia style Suikoden character list? (Not my main argument, but throwing that out there. Again, see the FF5 case - it seems by your logic, we should have deleted that article and all its redirects, then forced people wanting to recreate it to talk to an admin if they wanted to see the page history before recreating it and the redirects all later. For what advantage?) SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the claim that deleting redirects that are unhelpful to readers is busywork. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943, given your vote below, I suppose you are trying to +1 my comment and not SnowFire's? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My indents don't lie! Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, it was about Pppery's altogether? Looks like I was confused by CD's indent lines due to the +1. Though I guess that's what the "Go to parent comment" button is for! 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All for nontrivial history preservation and the usefulness to someone. WP:CHEAP applies, and I don't buy the argument that it is harmful. I don't think WP:LEAST would be violated if someone was redirected to this target, even if information is currently lacking, and there is a good faith statement above that these characters may have enough sources to be considered notable by wikipedia standards in the future, which I will accept at face value. Fieari (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't the same logic that states that individual unnotable fire emblem character redirects (like matthew) should get deleted apply here? this seems a little too indiscriminate for me cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If they are not there, they are not there. Having readers being forwarded to the target article when there is literally nothing there about the redirects' subjects is misleading. If there is a concern with the histories of any of these redirects, consider restoring them and sending them to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this in perspective, the WP:RCAT template {{R without mention}} puts the page into a maintenance category called Category:Redirects to an article without mention. The purpose of the aforementioned category is essentially a maintenance backlog; the category is meant to be empty, which means either the redirects that are tagged with this template should be deleted, or a mention of the redirects should be added to the target article. None of the "keep" votes yet have addressed this hypocrisy. If neither of the aforementioned actions are taken, it is akin to throwing the redirects back into the same maintenance backlog they were already in, resulting in no progress to improving the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would relevant histories mean that they should go to AFD? Nobody is advocating bringing back the character-specific articles, so there's no point in AFD, it's a matter for RFD.
    As far as the maintenance category, I'm sure that there are literally thousands of redirects that "should" be in that category but are actually harmless and "useful" and would be kept in hypothetical well-attended RFD arguments. We routinely have minor redirects for a variety of reasons, including preserving page histories and being useful. RFD Keep #5 is quite direct: if you want to improve the encyclopedia, just let useful-but-minor redirects exist. They're fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding that this is RfD and not AfD. However, the way that you have been referring to these redirects makes me believe that the existence of these redirects formerly as articles or being mentioned at the target before validates them existing as redirects. That is not the case, it causes problems, and I don't feel like repeating my arguments that I stated earlier, which are still valid and refute this point. My AfD comment was catering to the "keep" votes above, but I'd rather these redirects be deleted immediately. The redirects are not "fine" and are currently not "useful" since readers will find nothing about the subjects of the redirects at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SUCK!

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

#invoke:Navbox

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1251405195"