Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
- If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- 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?
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
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criteria G10 and G3 may apply.)
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply unless if the redirect from the main article namespace points to the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and Portal: namespaces.)
- 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, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the
suppressredirect
user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves. - 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
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. 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 and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
- 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. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
- The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
Neutrality of redirects
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. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- 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).
- 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
- 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
I. | Tag the redirect.
Enter
| ||||
II. | List the entry on RfD.
Click to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
| ||||
III. | Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. 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 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
June 10
June 9
Lauren Bloomstein
- Lauren Bloomstein → HELLP syndrome#Notable cases (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Added to link to the HELLP syndrome page. No other evidence of notability. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep redirect. In my view. Bloomstein is not notable enough for a separate page, but is worth of listing as a case study, and hence having a redirect from the name. Bloomstein was the focus of a news article: Martin, Nina; Montagne, Renee (May 12, 2017). "The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth". NPR.. The importance of this case was also made by Biosthmors and User:Vaticidalprophet at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Maternal mortality, alluding to further literature; they have gone so far as to suggest stand-alone pages for her death. Klbrain (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- So. If she were mentioned at the article, this would be a pretty clear keep to me. She's notable enough to be a plausible search term, but not notable enough to be a WP:REDLINK candidate, and the circumstances of her death are thing she's best known for. However, I see that the nominator removed the reference to her in the HELLP article a minute before filing this RFD. And an {{r without mention}} from a person's name to a medical condition isn't ideal. And I kind of agree with JFW that that sentence wasn't doing anything for the article; I also agree with Klbrain, though, that content on her could belong in the article, just in a more fleshed-out form. So, I'll try to keep an eye on how the underlying content dispute goes, but if I don't comment here again before this RFD closes, the closer can record this as a conditional !vote: keep if she's mentioned in the article at time of close; delete with no prejudice against recreation if she isn't. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that the nominator removed the reference to her in the HELLP article a minute before filing this RFD
...well, that's just a spectacular move on the nominator's part, isn't it? (As mentioned on WTMED, I'm confident there's enough here for an in-depth stand-alone Death of Lauren Bloomstein. I don't think it's a WP:REDLINK situation per se, because Lauren Bloomstein wouldn't be the page itself, rather a retargeted redirect.) Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- In all honesty I removed the mention from the HELLP syndrome page first because I found it illogical to mention the name of a single victim of this dreadful condition. The argument for notability strikes me as circular: her ordeal was mentioned in an article that uses her mostly as an example for the wider problems around maternal mortality. Rather than emphasising her name and the outcome, I believe emphasis should be placed on broader efforts to reduce maternal mortality. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - this is essentially a WP:BLP1E situation in which a person is only notable because of the manner of their death. If the only information we have on the person is a redirect to their cause of death, WP:BLPPRIVACY applies and this should not be on Wikipedia. Iff something is written about her later then this can be recreated, and/or WP:REDLINK applies. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a policy nitpick, 2017 date of death means that BLP/BDP doesn't apply. WP:BIO1E still does, though (although at least by its letter it doesn't apply to redirects). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bloomstein died in 2011, so well outside BLP range. Vaticidalprophet 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that's what I get for not RTFA. (Well, I did R it, or at least S'd it; just apparently not that detail.) So yes, my nitpick (maybe upgraded to an outright quibble) stands all the more then. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, I do often mix up our living persons and not-living persons guidelines. I'm going off-book here: people, whether alive or dead, deserve some degree of dignity. Lauren Bloomstein was a real person, with real hopes and dreams, with real feelings, with a real life and real people who knew her and loved her. If the only thing that we can write about her is what amounts to trivia about her death, we should just not write about her at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you as a moral matter. Hence my split !vote. If the redirect aids navigation to a place where someone is mentioned, then it should exist. But if it's an {{r without mention}}, then editorial discretion comes into play, and the morality of how we treat the recently deceased (by a colloquial definition, not a BDP definition) is part of that discretion. I really wish people had waited to resolve the underlying content dispute here before taking it to RFD. It's always annoying to have parallel discussions. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, I do often mix up our living persons and not-living persons guidelines. I'm going off-book here: people, whether alive or dead, deserve some degree of dignity. Lauren Bloomstein was a real person, with real hopes and dreams, with real feelings, with a real life and real people who knew her and loved her. If the only thing that we can write about her is what amounts to trivia about her death, we should just not write about her at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that's what I get for not RTFA. (Well, I did R it, or at least S'd it; just apparently not that detail.) So yes, my nitpick (maybe upgraded to an outright quibble) stands all the more then. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bloomstein died in 2011, so well outside BLP range. Vaticidalprophet 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a policy nitpick, 2017 date of death means that BLP/BDP doesn't apply. WP:BIO1E still does, though (although at least by its letter it doesn't apply to redirects). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer
- Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer → Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimers → Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused and misleading - target page does not mention COVID-19. While the disclaimer obviously applies to COVID-related content, as it does to all medical content, the redirect gives the false impression that the target page contains information specific to COVID-19. We may as well create WP:Lung cancer disclaimer, WP:Strep throat disclaimer, WP:Broken arm disclaimer and so on... Spicy (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Sickie
- Sickie → Sick leave (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sickies → Absenteeism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sicky → Absenteeism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Target article doesn't mention either the term or, as far as I can tell, the concept it denotes. As such, this is a misleading redirect. — Smjg (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment adding the plural Sickies and alternative spelling Sicky to this discussion, since they should point to the same target or be deleted together. Its current target, absenteeism, doesn't mention the term nor discuss the concept of taking sick leave when you're not actually sick. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia
- Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia → Transnistria conflict (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Transnistria and Gagauzia had their separate conflicts. They are not directly related, so this redirect is pointless. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Costa Rica women's national under-20 football team
- Costa Rica women's national under-20 football team → Costa Rica women's national football team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete to encourage possible article creation. Not mentioned at target, and we've deleted many of these types of redirects in the last year or so. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Babe (video game)
- Babe (video game) → Babe (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No mention of a game at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, minimal connection with the original film. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Added information and a reference about the video game based on the film. Aqua3993 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aqua3993: The reference you added doesn't appear to establish that the game is actually tied to the film, and also doesn't seem to be a particularly reliable source. If you can find a better source, I'd support keeping. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 09:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: There was an actual Video game based on this particualar film and you can find video game footage on youtube. With that said, it needs to be established whether the game should only be mentioned on film is article or be its own seperate article DoctorHver (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: It is worth noting that the content that Aqua3993 added has since been removed because of the poor sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ROSE
- Wikipedia:ROSE → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 117#Rosenberg resolution (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I'm not sure why there should be a shortcut to a single discussion on a WikiProject talk page from 6 years ago. Perhaps it was at the time expected to be an influential precedent in some way, but the shortcut has never been used, and now risks cluttering search results; someone might be looking for a WikiProject on Guns N' Roses, the Wars of the Roses, etc. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's a WikiProject discussion used as precedent when discussing whether fictional characters need standalone articles. If there is a more pressing need for the shortcut, feel free to repurpose it. Otherwise it remains a useful shortcut. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete and I agree with the nominator's "surprise" argument as to the relevancy of WP:ROSE; there is no tangible connection between "Rose" and "Rosenberg" so it isn't a useful shortcut. In any event, the outcome of that discussion does not appear to have gained support and traction as a guideline or precedent, it was never even curated as a coherent essay, and it is only ever brought up whenever the original proposer of the discussion participates in discussions about notability of fictional topics on occasion. AfD discussions almost always cite WP:GNG and/or WP:NFICTION whenever the notability of a topic is in dispute. Wikipedia:ROSENBERG is perfectly adequate if any other editor other then the original proposer wants to look up the original discussion for informative purposes. Haleth (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete due to the shortcut's inscrutability. I agree with all of Haleth's points above. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 20:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AINTBROKE. It's useful to someone as a redirect to that discussion, and no competing use has been suggested. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- ReTarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by flower/Women named Rose. There's also Wikiproject Romance and Wikiproject Guns n Roses. But I think the WiR page meets the name the best. (I scrolled through waaay too many project pages to see what might be out there lol. Mostly AfDs, FACs, SPIs, and various usernames that had "rose" in them.) - jc37 23:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to that personally, but we typically don't retarget WikiProject redirects unless the target project has asked for it. I don't recall exactly what the rationale is but I do remember this coming up somewhat often. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:8BALL
- Wikipedia:8BALL → User:MZMcBride/8-ball (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to WP:CHECKUSER. 8ball primarily refers to CU and not a userspace magic 8ball, see {{8ball}} The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: . WP:8ball and WP:MAGIC8BALL redirect to a section of the CheckUser page. dudhhrContribs 22:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per the principle of least astonishment. Note that there's a few userpages where the redirect would need to be bypassed, but none of anyone active. Courtesy ping to MZMcBride. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Based on Dudhhr's edit: Specifically, refine to Wikipedia:CheckUser § Guidance given to CheckUsers for consistency. @Dudhhr: Please remember to make it obvious when you edit a comment to which someone has already replied, per WP:TALK#REVISE. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - "answer like an 8 ball" from the text at WP:CHECKUSER, is merely suggesting to be vague/opaque in detail but clear in response. it's not saying you have to say the word(s) "8 ball". or even to use that template. Templates are a convenient alternative to text. nothing more. Is there a better arguement for changing than "He has it but we wants it"? - jc37 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: retarget everything to User:MZMcBride/8-ball. Note that this page was never a redirect to the checkuser policy (it originally redirected to Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which at the time of the redirect's creation had a Magic 8-ball section, [1]) but it makes sense for all of these titles to target the same place. "Answer like a Magic 8-ball" isn't a helpful instruction to include in a policy: it makes it sound like checkuser is a game or that we're just making stuff up, and I'm going to go propose it be reworded or removed. Personally I only use the {{8ball}} template when a request is difficult to parse and the results likely to be uninformative, which I now see isn't the prescribed use at all; in any case I use the prescribed finding templates ({{confirmed}}, {{possible}}, {{unrelated}}, {{inconclusive}}, etc) for actual results. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, sounds good to me. - jc37 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all. This is our typical solution to barely used and potentially ambiguous WP-space redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete current redirect doesn't add value, as no-one would be looking for it. And doesn't seem like there's an actually plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Trcuk
Typo that you can only make by hitting keys in the wrong order; not the sort of thing where we're helping readers who think it's spelled this way. Too WP:COSTLY, as this would also justify Rtuck, Trukc, etc. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment it is a simple transposition error. And as "teh" uses over the internet indicate, such transpositions are not uncommon. The existence of the redirect does not mean that we are encouraging creating others, rather that it already exists as a redirect. WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it is not telling people to spell it the way the redirect does, as the target doesn't spell it that way either. Tag it as {{R from typo}} (already there) and {{R unprintworthy}}. It seems WP:CHEAP to me, unless you can show some other target that is equally or more likely. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I initially refrained from commenting on this one due to the existence of trcuk.org. However, there doesn't seem to be information on the site about that organisation, so it's best to keep. After all, it's a pretty common typo. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need to create lots of redirects for typographical errors: type "trcuk" into the search box, you immediately get "Did you mean: truck" and lots of links with the word "truck" in them. These redirects are pointless: search engines can cope easily with single letter transpositions and direct you to the correct article. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- They aren't pointless if they help readers find what they're looking for in less clicks. What is pointless is deleting them. We may not need to create these redirects but we definitely don't need to delete them. This RfD existing creates more maintenance than the redirect ever would. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 20:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:R#D8. Implausible typo, recently created, should have been a speedy delete.The Truck article has been there for about 20 years and we didn't need a made up typo redirect until last month. Jay (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- To the contrary, it's a very common typo. That satisfies K5. "Well other people would have done it" is not a very convincing argument, in fact rather self-defeating. I am aware it was a few years ago, but I created Altanta, faintly surprised that no one had created it previously. The fact is that few editors create redirects for common typos, despite their high use. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Romania
- The Holocaust in Romania → History of the Jews in Romania#The Holocaust (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I suggest deletion of the redirect in order to promote article creation. This is an important topic in Romania's participation in WW2 and in WW2 as a whole (Romania was Germany's main collaborator in the Eastern Front and had an important community of 600,000 Jews before the war). I believe this article shouldn't be a redirect but a red link so people don't assume this has a page and just ignore it. Super Ψ Dro 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It is already to proposed to split the section off into it's own article and deletion is not required to accomplish this, but while the redirect exists it takes people looking to read about the topic to the information we have about it rather than assuming we have nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off drafts
- Draft:Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off → The Walking Dead: World Beyond (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Draft:Untitled Walking Dead spin-off → The Walking Dead: World Beyond (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Currently there is an "Untitled Daryl & Carol spin-off series" listed at The Walking Dead (franchise), but regardless, a franchise can always have "untitled spin-offs" in the making. This isn't helpful leading to a specific series. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The Breakfast Show (Triple J)
- The Breakfast Show (Triple J) → Triple J#The Breakfast Show (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The target article mentions breakfast programming but not "The Breakfast Show". Note that the disambiguation page The Breakfast Show is proposed for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Interdenominational
- Interdenominational → ecumenism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to Non-denominational. Most of the 159 incoming links deal with individual organizations (most of them Christian) who consider themselves to be beyond traditional denomination borders, not with relations between people and organizations from different faiths and denominations, which is the subject of ecumenism. An alternate target may be Nondenominational Christianity. However, article Non-denominational gives a clear definition of these non/inter/trans-denominational organizations and pointers to more specific targets for Christian, Muslim and Jewish contexts, as the term is not Christian per se. Place Clichy (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Steve Cutler (wrestler)
- Steve Cutler (wrestler) → Deonna Purrazzo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Deletion. No reason to redirect a wrestler to his current girlfriend. The article doesn't cover the wrestler career and, if they drop the relationship, the redirect will be obsolete. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation, unless there is a better target, which I can't find. The current target has no mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Gibberish language
- Gibberish language → Gibberish (game) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The current target talks about the language game, mainly played in North America. "Gibberish language" should retarget to Gibberish because the proposed target talks about the gibberish language (speech) in general, including fake words without any actual language. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gibberish (disambiguation) and disambiguate there. Seems overdue to have a dab page with the multiple hatnotes at Gibberish, and targeting this there would cover confusion between the game and the general topic. Absent that, I would support retargeting directly to Gibberish per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gibberish which disambiguates other uses with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gibberish. Gibberish is a particular use of language. Gibberish language is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; it should intuitively point to Gibberish as it pertains to language, not a game; that would be a surprise. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- retarget to Gibberish] per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
June 8
Italy gate
- Italy gate → SISMI-Telecom scandal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this, and Italygate, now redirect to Italygate conspiracy theory? Bangalamania (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Enwiki has no use of this term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: Wikipedia clearly does have a use of this term at Italygate conspiracy theory, as the nom indicated. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @PEIsquirrel: There is a difference between "Italy gate", gate of Italy (no mention), and "Italygate", derived from Watergate. Incidentally, I see Italygate is not at List of "-gate" scandals. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: I have only recently created the Italygate conspiracy theory page, so that's why. I've since added it there now. (Curiously, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was also not mentioned there, but this "Pizzagate" was, so I added that there too). I assumed the space was a typo in the original redirect, more to do with the -gate suffix as used for scandals (which this seems to be), as there is nothing to do with actual gates in Italy on the SISMI-Telecom scandal page. Although as mentioned below, there is no mention of the term on the page, so it's a little confusing. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @PEIsquirrel: There is a difference between "Italy gate", gate of Italy (no mention), and "Italygate", derived from Watergate. Incidentally, I see Italygate is not at List of "-gate" scandals. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud: Wikipedia clearly does have a use of this term at Italygate conspiracy theory, as the nom indicated. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Italygate conspiracy theory as proposed. There is no mention of "Italygate" or anything-gate at SISMI-Telecom scandal and I see no evidence that it was ever referred to by that name. No opinion on the redlinked title since it doesn't exist. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Italygate conspiracy theory as an obvious {{R from short name}}. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Jim Meyer (businessman)
- Jim Meyer (businessman) → Sirius XM (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) reta;]
Delete. Subject is not mentioned at target. I added a redlink to Jim Meyer (businessman) at Meyer Shank Racing last night because Jim Meyer the football player is a different human. Redlinks are OK. Alternatively retarget to Meyer Shank Racing. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Meyer Shank Racing. I made it redirect to Sirius XM because Meyer was the companies' CEO, but the retarget is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainPeanut (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris: GhostOfDanGurney suggests in his nomination rationale that although he prefers deletion, he is okay with retargetting. The only other participant favored retargetting. I'm not convinced this requires or really benefits from a relist. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Well I sure am convinced that your closure was inappropriate per WP:BADNAC. The nominator is clearly in favor of deletion, just because he is suggesting that a retarget would be OK doesn't necessarily mean that consensus has been reached. He still prefers deletion, as proven by his rationale, and further input from other participants is definitely needed here. CycloneYoris talk! 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris: Well, the record shows that I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Well I sure am convinced that your closure was inappropriate per WP:BADNAC. The nominator is clearly in favor of deletion, just because he is suggesting that a retarget would be OK doesn't necessarily mean that consensus has been reached. He still prefers deletion, as proven by his rationale, and further input from other participants is definitely needed here. CycloneYoris talk! 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY due to multiple possible targets without an obvious "best" target, with a possible WP:REDLINK because CEOs of major corporations are usually notable (however I haven't investigated deep enough to give a definite opinion on his notability). Mr. Meyer is mentioned a couple times at SiriusXM, however both times are as "James", not "Jim", so that's probably why GhostOfDanGurney concluded that he's not mentioned. Meanwhile, Mr. Meyer's mention at Meyer Shank Racing is also not ideal since he's only mentioned as a bare-bones namedrop as an owner; one would not learn anything additional about him from being redirected there. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete pending an article if he (or one of them) is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Fascism in India
- Fascism in India → Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Accusations_of_Fascism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
should be deleted. The jump from "Accusations of Fascism" to a claim of outright Fascism has serious POV issues and creates issues with failure to cover any other potential forms of Fascism in India. ©Geni (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:
I think Geni has forgotten a rationale here.(Rationale now added — Bilorv (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)) The page has a non-trivial history and I'm not sure if any of it is needed for attribution of content now found at the target article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bilorv, looking at the pages if there was ever a need for attribution, it doesn't exist anymore. The page has been a redirect since 2008 and the target is a high traffic page which has undergone a lot of changes since then. I would suggest a retarget to Hindutva though, RSS is one of a number of organisations which have faced accusations of being fascist in an ideological sense of the word, all due to their adherence of Hindutva. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: the topic is significantly broader than the current target, which is at best some experts thinking the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are informed by fascism. Hindutva#Fascist and Nazi undertones is better (retarget as second choice) but it's still a misleading and POV target. The topic "Fascism in India" connotes something broader but there is no appropriate article or section that discusses this topic as a whole (that I can see). — Bilorv (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous and likely to lead to confusion. There's nothing at Politics of India. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, with respect to the rationale provided I would recommend against deletion, non-neutral names for redirects are allowed per WP:RNEUTRAL. Identification of fascism in India is exclusive to Hindutva at present, and has become increasingly mainstream among its detractors which makes this an useful redirect. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Siege of Thionville (1870)
- Siege of Thionville (1870) → Thionville#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This page title has its own article on the Vietnamese wiki on the specific battle and the article this redirect goes to doesn't explain much of the battle anyways. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and tag it for translation from Vietnamese. Jay (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I have asked the editors at WikiProject Military history whether they might be able to suggest a better target. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I´m not sure why there´s a RfD, seems to me the current redirect provides the most detail available for now and the OP can simply overwrite it with proper article content once there is some, with no need for prior discussion or approval. And for the records there also is a french-wiki article about it, might ease the translation. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet: It doesn't seem to me that the current target discusses the 1870 siege of Thionsville at all, just a 1792 siege and then the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. Because redlinks encourage article creation, it is common to delete redirects that point to targets that don't contain any useful information on the subject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Right, mixed that up with the info from the German Thionville page, sorry. However I thought that the OP is soon going to make a translation of the Vietnamese page. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet: I'm not sure where you got the impression that he was planning on doing that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, from his recent creation of numerous battle articles of that war by translating Vietnamese wiki articles, of course. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet: I'm not sure where you got the impression that he was planning on doing that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Right, mixed that up with the info from the German Thionville page, sorry. However I thought that the OP is soon going to make a translation of the Vietnamese page. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- @GELongstreet: It doesn't seem to me that the current target discusses the 1870 siege of Thionsville at all, just a 1792 siege and then the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. Because redlinks encourage article creation, it is common to delete redirects that point to targets that don't contain any useful information on the subject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Operation Flying Eagle
- Operation Flying Eagle → 2005 Nias–Simeulue earthquake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no such thing as "Operation Flying Eagle". 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Not mentioned at target, but according to the WHO, Operation Flying Eagle is the relief operation conducted by the Singapore Armed Forces to help people affected by the earthquake. To my knowledge, this article is the only suitable target for this redirect. -- dylx 14:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dylx' link seems to show that Operation Flying Eagle was about the '04 tsunami, not the '05 earthquake. Retarget to Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Singapore, where "Singapore" is an anchor to be created at the Singapore entry in § Asia and Oceania. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Dylx's link is a draft with proposed revisions, so I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet RS requirements. I'm not sure that actually matters for the purpose of this discussion, though. Anyway, the description of this operation clearly matches the operation listed at Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, so I think retargetting there is prudent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Shiro SAGISU Music from "Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone"
- Shiro SAGISU Music from "Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone" → Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a redirect from a pagemove that removed the name from the article title. The original Eva soundtrack album articles were all merged and redirected to Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion in 2010. This now only shows up as a weird secondary suggestion in the search box drop down when inputting Shiro Sagisu, and since the article only ever existed under this name for about six months from 2007/08, I think we can safely get rid of it. AngryHarpytalk 09:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as incorrect stylization. http://cura.art/310435/Are-Not-Alone-Soundtrack-CD-EVA/ If you're going to all-caps SAGISU, you should also all-caps EVANGELION and YOU ARE NOT ALONE. The quotes should also be around Evangelion 1.0 and not the entire title. Okay with creating Music from Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone or Shiro Sagisu: Music from Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
National TV
- National TV → Centrul Național Media (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think this title is too generic to redirect to a specific channel. Incoming links agree. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:XY and WP:RFD#D1. I can see equal rationale to retarget this to either state media or public broadcasting, which are related but not the same thing at all. Search results would be better here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Delete unless there are better alternatives.The redirect was acceptable until it's target was Național TV. Jay (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- Hatnote per Ivan's demonstration as long as state media and public broadcasting are the only potential topics. Delete if hatnote is not feasible. - Jay Talk 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep (revised !vote) - I didn't know about the title Jay just referred to, but this is a valid {{R without diacritics}} to that title. A hatnote could be added there referring to both state media and public broadcasting, in which case that treatment is better than search results. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added a hatnote as demonstration. If this discussion produces a different result, it can be removed. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How about a DAB? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If these are the only potential topics then the hatnote does the job just fine, but if there are other topics which might be called "National TV" then sure. I'm not aware of any that aren't partial title matches but I also didn't look very hard - I assumed if a title as generic as this merited disambiguation then it would have already been done. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is, for example, National Broadcasting of Guinea-Bissau, but that is not a television broadcaster. Category:Television stations and Category:Television networks are container categories with many sub-levels and I don't have time to go through them all just now. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How about a DAB? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I added a hatnote as demonstration. If this discussion produces a different result, it can be removed. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Not to the throw a wrench in the discussion, but, uh… I've nominated Centrul Național Media for deletion for apparent lack of notability. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Little Portugal, Los Angeles
- Little Portugal, Los Angeles → San Pedro, Los Angeles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no information in the article about a Little Portugal in Los Angeles. The entry at Portuguese-American neighborhoods refers to San Pedro, Los Angeles, which might be a better target, but there's no mention there either of a neighbourhood actually known as "Little Portugal". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I checked www.Newspapers.com, and there is no mention of a "Little Portugal" neighborhood in Los Angeles at all, ever. I have no objection to the redirect as long as we know there is actually a neighborhood (and not just a couple of restaurants) in San Pedro called Little Portugal. Otherwise, I would say to delete it entirely. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm not finding any mention in anything on ProQuest, Google Books or other search engines. No mention at the target article, in any case, is good enough for me, with no prejudice against recreation if reliably-sourced content on the area (which I'm guessing is a local nickname for a population of a couple of thousand people) is introduced to the target article or any other. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Free State
- Free State → Free State (province) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This currently targets the same title but with a disambiguator, which is not correct because it means that the title Free State (province) has unnecessary disambiguation. It should target the disambiguation page Free state (which lists articles with both capitalisation styles) as an alternative capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Free state per nom. It used to point there but was changed in 2015 without explanation. - htonl (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom and Htonl. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget as per above ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Carte blanche
- Carte blanche → Blank cheque (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this target Blank cheque as the primary topic at this capitalisation, or the disambiguation page Carte Blanche? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- When I saw this my first thought is that most links are looking for the common usage, that is the dictionary definition at wikt:carte blanche. Looking at the search results I see a lot more figurative than literal uses for the lowercase form. Dab page seems like an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to the dab page per Buidhe. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Both the literal and figurative uses are covered at Blank cheque. Proper names are covered at the dab where both words are capitalized (in almost all cases). MB 16:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
June 7
First Second Gentleman
- First Second Gentleman → Douglas Emhoff (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
While Emhoff is the first second gentleman of the US, he is not the first second gentleman globally. Second gentleman, a potential redirect target, redirects to Second lady, which has no meaningful information about the "first" second gentleman (or even much about second gentlemen in particular at all). Thus, I'm leaning towards deletion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Who is the first Second Gentleman, if Emhoff is not? I tried to look it up, but Googling "first second gentleman" returns only results about Emhoff, and it's rare for the results to specify that he's the first Second Gentleman in the United States. Limiting those results to before 1 Jan 2020 returns only results about other hypothetical American second gentlemen, other than dictionary results which define the term as the male partner of the vice president of the United States. So while he may technically not be the first globally, he's still the top search result, and I feel like this should be kept absent any other targets. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I found Joachim Sauer. I have no idea if he's the first, but we'd have to find someone before 2005. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Besides having been named this on Wikipedia, is there any evidence that Sauer is referred to as "Second Gentleman" or whatever the German equivalent is? It should be noted that all of the sources used in our Second lady article are American and discuss American Second Ladies (mostly wives of vice presidents but also wives of heads of state senates and such), and the article has been flagged for WP:SYNTH since last November, so I'm very suspicious that applying the American terminology to partners of sub-heads of state of other countries is something Wikipedia invented. Besides that, the Chancellor of Germany is not equivalent to the Vice President of the United States. In parliamentary democracies (including Germany) the order of precedence of elected officials is not usually as clear and rigid as in the United States: in Germany, the President of Germany is the head of state but otherwise their role is primarily ceremonial, while the Chancellor is the head of government and commander-in-chief, and the person normally viewed as the country's leader (more or less equivalent to the American President). However, in the symbolic German order of precedence, the Chancellor is third, not first or second. If we were to apply the American titles to these individuals, I would believe it just as likely for Sauer to be called the First Gentleman. But I think neither applies: American First and Second partners tend to have high-profile ceremonial roles in society (or even official roles in government) while partners of government leaders in other countries tend to be generally private individuals (unless notable in their own right). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've edited this comment because I realized later that I was rambling and repeated myself a bit. Original is in the history. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- OTOH if we take the definition as is and apply it literally, I believe Denis Thatcher (1979) is our man. Any previous first female head of government of a parliamentary democracy (Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir) was elected after their spouse died, except for Elisabeth Domitien whose marriage dates are uncertain. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Besides having been named this on Wikipedia, is there any evidence that Sauer is referred to as "Second Gentleman" or whatever the German equivalent is? It should be noted that all of the sources used in our Second lady article are American and discuss American Second Ladies (mostly wives of vice presidents but also wives of heads of state senates and such), and the article has been flagged for WP:SYNTH since last November, so I'm very suspicious that applying the American terminology to partners of sub-heads of state of other countries is something Wikipedia invented. Besides that, the Chancellor of Germany is not equivalent to the Vice President of the United States. In parliamentary democracies (including Germany) the order of precedence of elected officials is not usually as clear and rigid as in the United States: in Germany, the President of Germany is the head of state but otherwise their role is primarily ceremonial, while the Chancellor is the head of government and commander-in-chief, and the person normally viewed as the country's leader (more or less equivalent to the American President). However, in the symbolic German order of precedence, the Chancellor is third, not first or second. If we were to apply the American titles to these individuals, I would believe it just as likely for Sauer to be called the First Gentleman. But I think neither applies: American First and Second partners tend to have high-profile ceremonial roles in society (or even official roles in government) while partners of government leaders in other countries tend to be generally private individuals (unless notable in their own right). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I found Joachim Sauer. I have no idea if he's the first, but we'd have to find someone before 2005. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I lean towards deletion. I'm not sure this is very useful despite the fun turn of phrase. In what contexts would someone link or search "first second gentleman" and not just type the shorter "second gentleman"? It's also confusing. It took me a second to figure out what it meant. I'm not against keeping or retargeting; I just worry it might cause more confusion than clarity. — Wug·a·po·des 19:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether or not it is technically correct, it is clear that Emhoff is the primary topic for the search term. We can add a hatnote to Second lady and/or category:Husbands of national leaders if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States. In the long list of ladies and gentlemen, it will show we have just the one gentleman. I see the purpose of the redirect not to refer specifically to the actual person holding the "title", but rather to the list that shows how men have made entry to the so far exclusive club, and in that list obviously Douglas Emhoff gets his due. And this is regardless of the global vs local, which is what this Rfd was about. There is no other biography page in Wikipedia, that has the "First Second Gentleman" sobriquet, so this is going to be about the US Vice Presidency. - Jay Talk 18:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not convinced this is prominent enough as a search term for Doug Emhoff to overcome the ambiguity and/or incorrectness. Even if it's limited to the United States, a spouse of a female lieutenant governor would be considered a second gentleman, of which it looks like Alfred G. Wilson was first. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Lab leak
- Lab leak → Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Targeting this to the contemporary meaning of this (whether it be the misinformation or the investigations page) seems like WP:RECENTISM to me, and is also a possible WP:SURPRISE, as a reader searching for the term might just be looking for a generic outlook on that. I suggest a retarget to Laboratory safetyList of laboratory biosecurity incidents (as suggested below), although I see it doesn't appear to have an explicit mention of this anywhere (though that would be easily fixed by regular editing, methinks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. List of laboratory biosecurity incidents may also be a potential target. I'm not 100% sold on it yet, but figured I'd mention it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agree to the suggestion, which seems IMHO to be more on point - likely that this should be mentioned somewhere on the first page I proposed, though. Note that Laboratory accident also leads to Laboratory safety (from a page move), so likely the redirects would need to go to the same target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
RetargetDisambiguate per below. While this is currently a hot news topic regarding COVID, it's unconfirmed relating to COVID and most importantly overly specific and will end up redirecting some users away from the topic they actually wanted (probably List of laboratory biosecurity incidents). We wouldn't redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome#Laboratory accidents or any other single incident, so it definitely shouldn't be directed to an unconfirmed COVID incident. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Updating vote to Disambig. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with a redirect either to laboratory safety or list of lab biosecurity incidents. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Lab Leak" is a phrase being used in news media as a shorthand for "Covid-19 Wuhan lab leak theory" or equivalent. The redirection was set up recently for this purpose and it would be very rare for anyone to search for the term in any other context. If it redirected to List of laboratory biosecurity incidents which does not mention the covid-19 case then that would clearly be WP:SURPRISE, not the reverse. Adding this theory to that page would be inappropriate since all the other incidents listed there are verified. I think it is a notable phrase in recent news and may remain so in future. Redirecting to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 seems like the most helpful option for people seeking related information. I prefer that redirection to remain, but second best alternative would be to delete it entirely rather than redirect to a page which does not have what is most likely being looked for. Weburbia (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I might agree more if the redirect was from "lab leak theory". I feel like "lab leak" alone is broader than that. Given the suggestions either redirect could be surprising, perhaps a disambiguation page makes more sense,? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of laboratory biosecurity incidents, with a hatnote to the COVID discussion. The general concept is much more likely to be a useful target in the long term. Or put another way: Hijack doesn't redirect to September 11 attacks, despite that being perhaps the most prominent example of a hijacking in the last 20 years. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I would agree with User:Weburbia in that it would be a WP:SURPRISE should the redirect be to the "Laboratory Safety" page. If someone were to be looking for information on Laboratory Safety they would search.....Laboratory Safety. The WIV Lab Leak hypothesis is a prominent topic in the discourse, and "Lab leak" is a concise and intuitive way to search for information on this topic. Hatnotes could be useful if we wanted to cover the user searching for Laboratory Safety effectively. Thank you all. CatDamon (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the alternative proposal; nor concerns of recentism. Ivanvector's comparison also seems valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point User:RandomCanadian - I am open to a redirect to "List of laboratory biosecurity incidents" should a hatnote be incorporated into that page, redirecting to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" should a reader be looking for information on that topic. Hoping that is fair, thank you all. CatDamon (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per the squirrel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per RandomCanadian. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- disambiguate/setindexify While biosecurity incidents are a form of lab leak, there are several other forms. In any case, it should not point to the COVID article, since it is overly generic. In the Cold War, one might expect this to refer to nuclear espionage. And chemical lab leaks have occurred with poisonous substances getting out. So a set index might be the best use of such a pagename, with espionage topics (including industrial espionage), nuclear radiological leaks, chemical leaks, biological substance leaks, all being listed -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per anon above. Retarget as suggested would be my second choice. This is too vague to point to COVID pages and we should avoid recentism. — Wug·a·po·des 19:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 for the laboratory accident hypothesis, COVID-19 misinformation for the conspiracy theory, and List of laboratory biosecurity incidents. The fact that this redirect was created in 2021 in response to COVID, and that COVID information is what the vast majority of readers are looking for, dictates that COVID content should be easily accessible for readers who search for "lab leak". When was the last pandemic of comparable scale and impact? COVID will remain relevant for a long time, so recentism shouldn't be that much of a concern. feminist (+) 12:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I came to Lab leak looking for information about the Wuhan lab leak getting so much media attention now. Not sure why we don't have an article for it yet senators are questioning people about it now and ample news coverage. Dream Focus 03:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- disambiguate, It's obvious that plenty of people are going to search for this term expecting information on the COVID lab leak hypothesis. We need to have some sort of redirect pointing people in the direction of what they are actually looking for. For now, a disambiguation page would definitely help. I oppose redirecting to "List of laboratory biosecurity incidents", which of course doesn't mention the COVID lab leak hypothesis and therefore wouldn't be appropriate as a redirect. Krow750 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as is. From a cursory search, "Lab leak" (sometimes hyphenated as "Lab-leak") is a term specific to covid. Agree with CatDamon that it would be a surprise if the reader sees no Covid related content related to the topic.
- On disambiguation: Anon 67 mentions the Cold War and other varied scenarios, but I would like to first see references that tie "lab leak" to any. Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article gives many example sources, but none of them mention lab leak, or even leak. The closest I found was the 2007 UK foot-and-mouth outbreak, but the text "lab leak" was used literally, and not as a term. Let us not retrofit the literal term to laboratory articles like safety. Agree with CatDamon that someone looking for lab safety will try "lab safety". If future outbreaks are referred to as lab leaks, then sure we should disambig. Disagree with disambig to COVID-19 misinformation, the original target of this redirect. What started as a theory or hypothesis, later turned into investigation, the current target.
- On recentism: While WP:RECENTISM applies to article titles and content, it makes no mention of redirects. Just like WP:RNEUTRAL, redirect names should be flexible as it helps keep the respective targets balanced with respect to recentism. Jay (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Minecraft SMP YouTubers
- Sapnap → Dream (YouTuber)#Career (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- PmBata → Dream (YouTuber)#Discography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Antfrost → Dream (YouTuber)#Career (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- BadBoyHalo → Dream (YouTuber)#Career (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Quackity → Dream (YouTuber)#Dream SMP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Tubbo → Dream (YouTuber)#Dream SMP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Technoblade → Dream (YouTuber)#Dream SMP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The subjects regarding these redirects can not count as WP:ITSA, because most part of them haven't become famous by just playing with Dream, and the few that have become famous because of Dream have established their own notability in the Minecraft community (notability that is not enough to deserve a Wikipedia article in most cases, due to lack of reliable sources). Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There is already a precedent (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_15#GeorgeNotFound) which was sent to AFD because it was turned into an article. The discussion was closed as deleting without redirecting. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Changing discussion title to something more reasonable for the group of redirects. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I feel like the redirects for the Dream SMP members should be removed unless mentioned in a section, but the 4 hunters redirects (BadBoyHalo, Sapnap, Antfrost) excluding George should stand. 92.237.102.75 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Sapnap; Redirect GeorgeNotFound; Delete the rest. Sapnap and GeorgeNotFound are the only two individuals (besides Dream) within the Dream Team. Their association has been noted in a variety of articles online.[2][3][4] Additionally, I found more sources which mentioned Dream and GeorgeNotFound. These two articles credit GeorgeNotFound as a co-founder of the Dream SMP, and this set of articles has noted the real person fiction written about the two creators.
These sources were not discussed in the AFD for GeorgeNotFound, so I think it is safe to recreate it as a redirect (though with proper protections in place to prevent article re-creation).
As for the other redirects, many of them are not mentioned in the article. It would therefore cause more confusion if readers were directed to that article instead of getting a redlink. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all (except PmBata, but also GeorgeNotFound) to Dream SMP server, as the server is now notable enough for its own article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep GeorgeNotFound and Sapnap pointing to Dream's article without section redirects. Delete the others as not mentioned. Alternatively GeorgeNotFound could redirect to Dream SMP as a founder, but he has notability for being in a prominent Dream video. Do not recreate article since that goes against the delete result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeorgeNotFound back in April. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget GeorgeNotFound to Dream SMP and delete the others. Even Sapnap has a very limited mention at the target article, and in reliable sources. Redlinks are less confusing to readers who will expect to learn something non-trivial about the subject at the target article. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
One-party state 2.0
- One-party state 2.0 → Two-party system (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Possibly WP:POINTy redirect with only 159 pageviews. I could not find any sources using this name on a Google News search. dudhhrContribs 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: definitely a loaded term, and I can't find anything on ProQuest or other searches. Also no coverage of this (or any criticism negatively comparing two-party systems to one-party states) at two-party system. — Bilorv (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Minions Fever
- Minions Fever → Minions: The Rise of Gru (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target or at Minions (Despicable Me), delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There is a Fever mode in the video game Despicable Me: Minion Rush, but it is not explained in the article, so this is leftover gamecruft for now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Moue
- Moue → Facial expression (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
See this RfD. Should this target facial expression as it is right now, or pout, snout reflex, wikt:moue, deleted, disambiguated, or what? I don't have a preference for any of the options currently, other than that the current target is a bit inferior to any other target IMO. J947's public account 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to snout reflex as that is where the pout or moue is explained {{R from synonym}} / {{R from subtopic}}, and repoint "moues" there as well. "pout" is a disambiguation page, so the wrong target, since it isn't a disambiguation page for "moue/s" ; "facial expression" could serve as the destination, but "snout reflex" covers pouting, which is what a moue is. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Glossary of French expressions in English. There is nothing special about moue except that it is a French word borrowed by English and describes something for which we have English words. - Jay Talk 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to glossary per Jay add appropriate glossary tags. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Lin Long
- Lin Long → Leslie Lam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A redirect to a DAB page on which neither person is alternatively known as Lin Long. Lin Long is linked in International Amateur Pair Go Championship, and is apparently someone else altogether. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Leslie Lam (table tennis) as likely Mandarin romanization of 林龍, although Lam is from Hong Kong (Cantonese). Leslie Lam was recently (3 June) moved to become a disambiguation by Robertsky so this is a byproduct of the move that can be cleaned up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Aceh 2005 earthquake
- Aceh 2005 earthquake → 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The quake occurred in 2004, not 2005. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment if it is looking for aftershocks in 2005, then this is the correct destination -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to 2005 Nias–Simeulue earthquake, a quake in the same area which was thought at times to be related to the Boxing Day 2004 quake, and which impacted Aceh. Perhaps also delete in favour of search results - there are several notable quakes in the area around the same time (within a year or two), plus a disambiguation list at Aceh earthquake with other examples. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Although the creator had intended 2004 as per the initial page content, Retarget to Aceh#Tsunami disaster to better match the 2005 event per squirrel. Jay (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Future tennis events
- Future tennis events → 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete This one is 11 tears in the past, not the future. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Already too vague as is. Which tennis event? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as vague. No precedent to do this for any sports. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: what a relic of the past. No suitable target as there's no dominant "tennis event" that most readers would expect this to point to, and we don't have a list of all future (major) tennis events (List of tennis tournaments doesn't have an "Upcoming" section). Looking at the history, maybe this was supposed to be referring to ITF "Futures tournaments", but the singular in the redirect title makes this unclear and implausible as a search term. — Bilorv (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Future Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum
- Future Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum → 2017 Kurdistan Region independence referendum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete Misleading to have a "Future" redirect to something four years in the past. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I can't seem to find a better target (or evidence of a future independence referendum). Also, which Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, if any? Regards, SONIC678 15:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
- Draft:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex → Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Useless redirect now that the child has a name. 108.41.60.144 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:RDRAFT; redirects from draftspace are often kept once moved to article space for historical purposes. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You say often, whereas the cited guideline says "should be retained" without such qualifiers. I don't really care either way, but it's worth pointing out nothing actually links to this redirect aside from RFD-relevant listing pages, so if it's not always but "often" like you say, I don't see the harm in deleting. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Deletion will bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Thryduulf. "Useless" is not a criterion for redirect deletion; "harmful" would be, but I don't see how this can be considered harmful. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete due to draftspace being temporary by design and it's unnecessary to maintain a redirect now that it's out of draftspace. The only actual reason I've heard for keeping such redirects is to have a "bookmark" so the author can find the article, but given its prominence I'm sure Chessrat can find it without needing this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Abstain- I can indeed find the article either way, and do not think it's important whether or not the redirect is deleted. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
June 6
Temporary workaround to be deleted
Wikipedia:ABT
- Wikipedia:ABT → User:Deiz/Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to Wikipedia:About as a WP:SHORTCUT. Few incoming links, none from active talk pages. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget as proposed. The essay is redundant to WP:TOP100 and may contradict that guideline, and its advice may run counter to Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Unnamed/Untitled
- Unnamed Titanosaur → Titanosauria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur (2014) → Patagotitan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Patagonian titanosaur → Patagotitan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Tour → The Girls Tour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Pittsburgh fireboat → Sophie Masloff (fireboat) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Monster Spirits (Kirby) → Kirby: Right Back at Ya! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed play pavilion → Play! Pavilion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Spider-Man ride → Web Slingers: A Spider-Man Adventure (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Unnamed Miami team → Inter Miami CF (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson project → Soggy Bottom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel → Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Ant-Man and the Wasp sequel → Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson film → Soggy Bottom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Resident Evil film → Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled On the Other Side of the Tracks sequel → Tower of Strength (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Miranda July Project → Kajillionaire (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Migos album → Culture III (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Migos Album → Culture III (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Kevin Macdonald project → The Mauritanian (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Game of Thrones prequel → Game of Thrones#Bloodmoon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled David O Russell project → Canterbury Glass (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Alejandro González Iñárritu film → Limbo (upcoming Mexican film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Scream sequel → Scream (2022 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled David O. Russell film → Canterbury Glass (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Tina Fey/Robert Carlock project → Mr. Mayor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Voting Rights Documentary → All In: The Fight for Democracy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Velvet Underground documentary → The Velvet Underground (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Velvet Underground Documentary → The Velvet Underground (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled All Elite Wrestling show → AEW Dynamite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Cecily Strong comedy series → Schmigadoon! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Beauty and the Beast spinoff → Little Town (upcoming TV prequel series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Cassian Andor series → Andor (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Christopher Landon project → Freaky (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel → Spider-Man: No Way Home (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Spider-Man: Far from Home sequel → Spider-Man: No Way Home (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Sparks documentary → The Sparks Brothers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete Our regular cleanup: once something has a name or title, and the article is moved to that title, we have consistently deleted, as misleading, the move-created redirect once inbound wikilinks are corrected (as I have done here). UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Οἶδα (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. A few that could also be added: Untitled voting rights documentary, Untitled Shazam! sequel, Untitled Captain Marvel sequel, Draft:Untitled Captain Marvel sequel Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, at least the ones involving titanosaurs (unqualified to comment on the rest). They exist mainly for historical reasons (the taxon was popular before it was named). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very wary about deleting these because of old links. I haven't checked all of them but deleting something like this is exceedingly harmful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The following have significant pageviews and should not be deleted (pageviews in past 30 days in parentheses). Generally, a list of relevant works is a useful result for these terms, as readers can then find any such project, or find that none presently exist, which is still useful information.
- Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson project (392): retarget to Paul Thomas Anderson filmography
- Untitled Resident Evil film (14): retarget to Resident Evil (film series)
- Untitled Migos album (307): retarget to Migos discography
- Untitled Kevin Macdonald project (14): retarget to Kevin Macdonald (director)#Filmography
- Untitled Scream sequel (25): retarget to Scream (franchise)
- Untitled David O. Russell film (1,434): retarget to David O. Russell#Filmography
- Untitled Christopher Landon project (176): retarget to Christopher Landon (filmmaker)#Filmography
- Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel (1,634): retarget to Spider-Man in film
- Special cases:
- Untitled Velvet Underground documentary (19): keep, there are no more suitable targets.
- Untitled Sparks documentary (76): keep, no more suitable targets.
- Untitled Cassian Andor series (38): keep, I find it doubtful there's ever going to be a second television series on this highly specific element of a Disney property.
- Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel (20): defer to the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3#Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game.
- Untitled Game of Thrones prequel (271): close and relist separately so that options can be discussed. I don't read the books or watch the series, but my general understanding is that some kind of Game of Thrones project is always in the works, so this is a valid search term regardless of whether any such work presently exists.
- Delete the rest. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep all without prejudice as a trainwreck. This is far too many redirects to evaluate in a single go, and the comments above suggest that the nominator has not attempted to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: The Migos redirect remains as the result of a page move, so should not be deleted. As Thryduulf stated, there are too many nominated here at once; not all of them can be evaluated with the nuance and analysis needed when it's done like this. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- To summarise, the ones which exist as a result of page moves should be kept in order to avoid breaking links, both internal and external. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only ones which are not {{R from move}}ses are Unnamed Monster Spirits (Kirby), Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel, Untitled Ant-Man and the Wasp sequel, and Untitled Spider-Man: Far from Home sequel. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I saw we keep all but those. Point four of RfD supports my point above, and I don't think any of these have good reason to be deleted. I think these were all nominated in good faith, but the impression of bad faith could certainly be understood here. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only ones which are not {{R from move}}ses are Unnamed Monster Spirits (Kirby), Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog sequel, Untitled Ant-Man and the Wasp sequel, and Untitled Spider-Man: Far from Home sequel. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- To summarise, the ones which exist as a result of page moves should be kept in order to avoid breaking links, both internal and external. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as housekeeping given the titles are no longer untitled and links have been cleaned up. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Can't They Hear Us
- Can't They Hear Us → Gully (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The song is called "Can They Hear Us", not "Can't They Hear Us" NØ 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Shawano (mythology)
- Shawano (mythology) → Anishinaabe traditional beliefs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Deletion? Redirected word does not occur in target article, and apparently never did. Nothing links onto the redirect and it is extremely sparsely used acc. to statistics. Enyavar (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Shawnee. There's a very brief mention there, and probably could be expanded. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Grammar Nazi
- Grammar Nazi → wiktionary:grammar Nazi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grammar nazi → Grammar Nazi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grammar Nazis → Grammar Nazi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Grammar Nazi was redirected to Linguistic prescription in 2007 after an AFD. In 2012 it was turned into a soft redirect to wikt:grammar Nazi, then 18 months later back into an article, and then a few months later was returned to its original target. A 2016 RFD kept that target for it and for the two {{avoided double redirect}}s also listed here.
Buidhe has now turned it back into a soft redirect. Surprisingly, the well-attended '16 RFD did not significantly discuss that option, so I think it was reasonable for her to be bold here. However, I do think that the previous consensus was correct. I suggest that we restore old target. Wiktionary redirects are useful when we don't have an article that describes a concept, and aren't likely ever to. However, "grammar Nazi" refers to a concept described at linguistic prescriptivism. That the article doesn't mention the term is less than ideal, but there's no requirement that a term be mentioned at the target page; in particular, terms seen as insulting are often not mentioned. If the concern is that some readers might type in "Grammar Nazi" not knowing what it means, and fail to understand the connection, we could always use the hatnote {{See Wiktionary||grammar Nazi|term|redirect=Grammar Nazi}}
, which produces "Grammar Nazi" redirects here. For a definition of the term "grammar Nazi", see the Wiktionary entry grammar Nazi.
Finally, on a procedural note: Grammar nazi was incorrectly CSD'd in 2018. I noticed that while drafting this RFD, and brought it to the attention of The Earwig, who restored it. Just explaining that sequence of events in case anyone's wondering why it was restored and RFD'd in such quick succession.
-- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a great outcome as "grammar Nazi" is not even mentioned in "linguistic perscriptivism". These two concepts are not equivalent and Wiktionary has a better explanation than Wikipedia does. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – There's really no reason I can see for WP to link that offensive term to anything. And it was almost never seen in books, much rarer than Soup Nazi, until Wikipedia linked it in 2007; we shouldn't be doing that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – As one of those who have worked most extensively on Linguistic prescription, I would object to the link. First of all, because people who use this phrase are not talking about the practice of linguistic prescription as discussed in that article. And secondly (though this may be personal opinion and irrelevant, but it is a strong viceral reaction), because anyone who has seriously studied the Nazis must object to the trivialization of the horrors of that period which are implied by using the word "Nazi" to mean "anyone I don't agree with". We do not aim to have a Wikipedia article on every word just because it is a word. There is no encyclopedic topic here. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- All target linguistic prescription (weakly); RNEUTRAL needs to be borne in mind: perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In at least a significant portion of cases the term isn't meant derogatorily anyhow. A reader who hasn't heard of the term at least gets some idea of what it's about by being directed to the proposed target. It being often non-neutral is irrelevant considering that it is by far a plausible search term. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and target linguistic prescription WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia is not censored, and this is a very popular term. Deleting it would be censoring a widely used term. It is literally a label used to describe someone who is very strict about linguistic prescription, so that target should be the one. The wiktionary entry can be added to the See also section -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as-is. The term being offensive and uncommon in books doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me that we shouldn't have a page on it, because it is absolutely a common term in culture at large, and we objectively cover many more horrible things. But I agree with buidhe that a hatnote on linguistic prescription puts too much prominence on this and I agree with Doric Loon that it's not a good target anyway. All this leads me to conclude the current situation is the best we've got. — The Earwig (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Target all to Linguistic prescription. Useful search term. Categorize as {{R from related word}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect all to wikt:Grammar Nazi per The Earwig, along with Spelling Nazi (I haven't tagged it), perhaps with a hatnote from the soft redirect to linguistic prescription. The article would be a fine target for the concept of aggressive adherence to arbitrary language rules (see the paragraph under Criticism discussing "inappropriate dogmatism"), but the specific phrase is not discussed in that article, so the reader searching for this is likely to be astonished if redirected to that article without any further explanation. Wiktionary handles this better. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect seems the best option here. But I do think the opposing arguments (stating the term is offensive) unconvincing and not relevant. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect. These are used, and a wikt entry is available. A retarget to linguistic prescription is not suitable as it isn't mentioned there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Colorado Canyon
- Colorado Canyon → Grand Canyon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could also refer to other canyons on the river such as Black Canyon of the Colorado, or other canyons in the state of Colorado, such as Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Disambiguate or delete as ambiguous search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest disambiguation. Add the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area. --Error (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are far more, such as Marble Canyon and Glenwood Canyon and others described at Course of the Colorado River. Add to that any canyon in Colorado state, what we're talking about is a dab page (or more likely, a set index or List article) that would be a combination of List of canyons of the Colorado River and List of canyons in Colorado. This term is just too ambiguous and would need a major List article to cover properly. I'm fine if someone wants to undertake that, but in the meantime, I favor deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Further complication: perhaps "Colorado Canyon" could apply to canyons of any one of the eight Colorado Rivers in six countries that are covered in wikipedia (see: Colorado River (disambiguation)). In Google searching, I find that it seems to apply mainly (only?) to the Colorado Canyon in Big Bend Ranch State Park in Texas. Which is nowhere near Colorado River (Texas), by the way. So, as I !vote below, I think it is best to redirect the term to this apparently-to-me wp:PRIMARYUSAGE of the term. If it is determined there are significant other real usages of the proper noun term, then eventually a disambiguation page could be created (and that could mention the possibility of fake-type usages such as incorrect references to the Grand Canyon or to canyons in the U.S. state of Colorado). --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- There are far more, such as Marble Canyon and Glenwood Canyon and others described at Course of the Colorado River. Add to that any canyon in Colorado state, what we're talking about is a dab page (or more likely, a set index or List article) that would be a combination of List of canyons of the Colorado River and List of canyons in Colorado. This term is just too ambiguous and would need a major List article to cover properly. I'm fine if someone wants to undertake that, but in the meantime, I favor deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. There is no such place; "disambiguation" would not help. It would even be incorrect to redirect the term to a List of canyons and gorges in Colorado (currently a redlink) if there was one, because there is no such place. General search results would be better outcome for any reader search using this term. There does exist List of canyons and gorges in the United States (redirect to section of world-wide List of canyons. The only state-level list is List of canyons and gorges in Utah, which is not great, and is not inspiring me towards creating a Colorado list, although I have often created other list-articles to address AFD or CFD issues. There are 36 members of Category:Canyons and gorges of Colorado, including the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, by the way. Again, neither a disambiguation page or a list-article seems helpful to me. There are no meaningful inbound links to the term, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)- Redirect to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. Actually, searching on "Colorado Canyon" does yield https://visitbigbend.com/colorado-canyon/, about the proper noun "Colorado Canyon" in Texas's Big Bend area. It is apparently located within Big Bend Ranch State Park. I just expanded that article to mention and describe its "Colorado Canyon" there, and set up anchor so that redirection to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon will work properly. Striking my !vote to "Delete" above. --Doncram (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I further just added Category:Canyons and gorges of Texas to the redirect, presuming this CFD will conclude with implementation of redirection to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. If that is not the outcome, then Colorado Canyon (Texas) (currently a redlink) should be set up to redirect to the Big Bend one, and the category should be added to that redirect. --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Article categories aren't typically added to redirects per WP:RCAT. My google searching brings up both the Big Bend site, Grand Canyon, general pages about canyons in Colorado, and an amusement park. The term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation if we are to have a redirect to the Big Bend site, and I don't think the Big Bend site would be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in that case. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Article categories should be added to redirects where applicable, like in this case. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks J947, that's correct. wp:INCOMPATIBLE subsection within wp:RCAT explains that; it would not be correct to categorize the entire article Big Bend Ranch State Park as being a canyon of Texas. --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Article categories should be added to redirects where applicable, like in this case. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- User:Mdewman6, then what would the disambiguation page say? Perhaps:
- Article categories aren't typically added to redirects per WP:RCAT. My google searching brings up both the Big Bend site, Grand Canyon, general pages about canyons in Colorado, and an amusement park. The term is ambiguous and requires disambiguation if we are to have a redirect to the Big Bend site, and I don't think the Big Bend site would be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in that case. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I further just added Category:Canyons and gorges of Texas to the redirect, presuming this CFD will conclude with implementation of redirection to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. If that is not the outcome, then Colorado Canyon (Texas) (currently a redlink) should be set up to redirect to the Big Bend one, and the category should be added to that redirect. --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Colorado Canyon may refer to: *Colorado Canyon (Texas) *or it may be an incorrect reference to Grand Canyon, which is on the Colorado River *or it could refer to a different canyon elsewhere, on one of many Colorado Rivers, but none specifically known as "Colorado Canyon" *or it may refer to any one of 35 or more members of Category:Canyons and gorges of Colorado, none named "Colorado Canyon" *or it may refer to a non-notable miniature golf course somewhere, whose URL https://www.coloradocanyonfun dot com/ is not linkable because it has web security problems.
- Maybe that is laying it on a bit thick, but I personally think a non-standard disambiguation page like that would not survive the AFD which would be started immediately upon its creation, and the result would be to redirect to the one valid member, Colorado Canyon (Texas) or to redirect directly to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon. Or could a proposed disambiguation page be better somehow? --Doncram (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that now with the mention of the site in Texas, deletion no longer makes sense, but the term is still too ambiguous to simply retarget to that section. I have drafted a disambiguation page at the current page that I think is the best we can do right now. Another possibility is to consider WP:SMALLDETAILS and target directly to Big Bend Ranch State Park#Colorado Canyon, but make the dab page at Colorado canyon? That way most searchers would be brought to the dab page and get where they want to go, but anyone typing the proper noun would get to the place actually named that. What do we think? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Goehr (composer and conductor)
- Goehr (composer and conductor) → Walter Goehr (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is an inappropriate use of {{R from surname}} due to the disambiguator. It is also not a plausible search term due to it being non-standard. It is additionally problematic because it is still ambiguous; his son Alexander Goehr followed him into his line of work. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've fixed the one link at Princess Tam Tam. I'm confused as to why that link and this redirect was created. Can Roman Spinner please give an explanation? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. "Goehr" was one of this composer's professional names and it was the name under which he was billed in the on-screen credits of the film Princess Tam Tam, as can be seen here at 1:02.
- Since it has been pointed out that this is an inappropriate use of {{R from surname}} due to the disambiguator, it should be revised to a more appropriate one, perhaps {{R from short name}}. If there is no appropriate template, perhaps this redirect can avoid using a redirect template. Although it may be non-standard, it does still remain as a plausible search term, since it is one of the names under which Walter Goehr was credited.
- While it may appear to be additionally problematic because it is still ambiguous in that his son Alexander Goehr followed him into his line of work, there is no indication that his son was ever billed or credited as simply "Goehr" and therefore Goehr (composer and conductor) would be only a search term for the father and not for the son. However, to avoid any possible misunderstandings, a hatnote can be added atop the father's entry — Goehr (composer and conductor) redirects here. For his son, see Alexander Goehr.
- As for fixing the "Goehr (composer and conductor)|Goehr" link at Princess Tam Tam so that it displays "Walter Goehr|Goehr" — since in addition to being credited as simply "Goehr", Walter Goehr was also credited as "G. Walter Goehr", "George Walter" and "Walter George", piping his alternative names as "Walter Goehr|alternative name" makes it appear at "What links here" that he was solely credited as "Walter Goehr" and does not give users the opportunity to discover in what projects he was credited under other names.
- Finally, I always try to explain my edits as fully as I can in my edit summaries. At 03:18, 4 June 2017 I wrote, "Redirecting main header delineating the appellation of German musical personality, Goehr (composer and conductor) [per his billing in the credits of the 1935 Josephine Baker feature Princess Tam Tam], to its full form, Walter Goehr"[5]. I had hoped that it would have been able to resolve any confusion as to why that link and this redirect was created. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is all very well, but I think the problem that it is non-standard still stands. No reader is going to search up a term using parentheses. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 01:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ultimately, Goehr (composer and conductor) is simply a redirect with a parenthetical qualifier. Anyone searching for a film composer known simply as "Goehr" is going to type "Goehr" and will see, as one of the options, "Goehr (composer and conductor)". Redirects with parenthetical qualifiers are very common — there are hundreds of thousands of such redirects at various redirect categories, such as Category:Redirects from moves. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is all well reasoned, but I'm not convinced that Walter is the primary topic for this search term, especially considering that Alexander is significantly more prominent. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 07:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Walter Goehr was not known simply as "Goehr", the credits from Princess Tam Tam displays it simply as Goehr due to space considerations. Someone who only has a surname to go off of to find an article would use the surname page Goehr, not type Goehr (composer and conductor) as a search term—it's too unwieldy. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no indication of a spacing problem in the credits. In fact, there is plenty of unused space in the on-screen slide containing Goehr's name. European films of the 1920s and 1930s frequently made such artistic choices in depicting some names in large print as solely surnames, while other names were depicted in full form.
- Ultimately, Goehr (composer and conductor) is simply a redirect with a parenthetical qualifier. Anyone searching for a film composer known simply as "Goehr" is going to type "Goehr" and will see, as one of the options, "Goehr (composer and conductor)". Redirects with parenthetical qualifiers are very common — there are hundreds of thousands of such redirects at various redirect categories, such as Category:Redirects from moves. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is all very well, but I think the problem that it is non-standard still stands. No reader is going to search up a term using parentheses. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 01:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Additionally, the redirect "Goehr (composer and conductor)" is not merely a search term. As pointed out above, Walter Goehr used a number of professional names, among them, Goehr (composer and conductor), G. Walter Goehr, George Walter (composer) or Walter George (composer). Users clicking on "What links here" at Walter Goehr's article should have the opportunity to determine under which name form he was credited in each of his individual projects.
- By replacing his piped credit "Goehr (composer and conductor)|Goehr" with the piped credit "Walter Goehr|Goehr", as was just done at Princess Tam Tam, makes it appear under "What links here" that he was credited on Princess Tam Tam as "Walter Goehr" and denies users the opportunity of making that determination.
- As for Walter Goehr's son Alexander, also a composer and conductor, anyone typing simply "Goehr", will indeed find both father and son at the Goehr surname page. The chief purpose of the redirect "Goehr (composer and conductor)" is for use in the credits of Princess Tam Tam and any other film or recording that billed Walter Goehr as "Goehr".
- If an uncertainty is still seen as existing, a hatnote atop Walter Goehr's article — Goehr (composer and conductor) redirects here. For his son, see Alexander Goehr — would resolve it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is an article about a person with the name Goehr who was a composer and a conductor so it's completely harmless. Nobody will benefit from it's deletion and given that it was created by a human at least one person has found it useful in the past, so it's far from impossible other people will in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Persian Sea
- Persian Sea → Persian Gulf (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Persian sea → Arabian Sea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Persian Sea redirected to Persian Gulf from 2006 to 2010, then to Arabian Sea till late 2019, then back to Persian Gulf. Persian sea has redirected to Arabian Sea since 2012. The discrepancy appears to be related to the lesser-known twin to the Persian Gulf naming dispute, with some Iranians using "Persian Sea" to mean "Arabian Sea"; but others seem to use it as a synonym for "Persian Gulf". Google results show that it's not a very often-used term, unlike its cousin in the naming dispute, "Arabian Gulf"; to the extent that it is used, I don't see a clear winner between it meaning "Arabian Sea" vs. "Persian Gulf."
My inclination is that these should both point to Persian Gulf, because in a body of water's name, the place name is more relevant than the type of body. I think the average person hearing "Persian Sea" would think of the Persian Gulf, just like you'd think of the Gulf of Mexico if someone said the "Sea of Mexico". However, this is a weak preference. What's most important is that these point to the same thing. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note to closer: Due to the history of nationalistic POV-pushing on this topic, I would suggest that, whatever the outcome here, the redirects be fully protected. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- persian sea can redirect to Persian Sea (historical) .it is mistake to redirect to persian gulf. 09:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)
- @Basp1: can you elaborate? We don't seem to have an article on a historical Persian Sea, which I take to mean a body of water that is neither the Persian Gulf nor the Arabian Sea. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambig. It doesn't appear that any one use is more prominent that the others. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Arabian Sea, with a hatnote to Persian Gulf. While I can understand the confusion, from reviewing the materials at Persian Gulf naming dispute I see that if any body of water is labelled "Persian Sea" it's what Wikipedia refers to as the Arabian Sea, while the Persian Gulf is sometimes labelled "Arabian Gulf". In other words, the sea is always a sea, and the gulf is always a gulf (the reverse of the consistency that Tamzin identified). Or in other other words, the naming dispute is always over what the gulf should be named after: Persia or Arabia (or a number of other things, among them Britain because of course), and while some people might confuse the nomenclature of sea vs. gulf, that is much less historically significant. I agree that whatever is decided, these redirects should be at least semiprotected. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Arabian Sea per Ivanvector. Some form of protection is needed, too. Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is a really complicated issue and I find myself agreeing with both @Tamzin and @Ivanvector (although I have a small note on Ivanvector comment, I will post it in his talk page later though). I tried researching the issue by browsing Google Scholar and reading the sources that were posted by @Basp1 and (now blocked indefinitely) @HistoricalNameisPersianSea and... honestly? I feel more lost now than when I've started. So I thought I would present my findings and why I don't necessarily lean to either redirecting to the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea.
- Firing up Google Scholar and browsing up to 30 results pages by searching 'Persian Sea' I've noticed that almost all search results are using the Persian Gulf in the title with the 'sea' keyword being used in the title or body like for example: "Analyses of the Persian Gulf sea surface temperature". But this alone doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist right? Obviously Google Scholar would present relevant mostly-recent scientific papers. Wanting to be impartial here and to put myself in @Basp1 + @HistoricalNameisPersianSea shoes I figured perhaps when they mention that it's a historical term then it would be a niche thing perhaps mentioned in Persian and Arabic sources in historical contexts or some islamic medieval sources for all we know. So that leaves us with reviewing the sources posted by @Basp1 and @HistoricalNameisPersianSea during their WP:WAR edits...
- → Down the rabbit hole: It seems that out of perceived urgency to WP:RGW @HNiPS wanted to present the Persian Sea as an alternative name in the article introduction (Diff) and then subsequently changed the article name by using the redirection we're discussing here (Diff), both seems to be built around a main source, which is http://www.persiangulfstudies.com/ a self proclaimed "institute of Historical, Geographical, Geopolitical and Strategic Studies of the Persian Gulf". And specifically this article titled: Makran Sea/Gulf of Oman. From their About Us page the "institute" raise some concerning red flags and I'm not only referring to their neutrality, but some 'odd' remarks as well: Aryan Races have been the first noble dwellers on the green earth to settle in this land and make true subjects to God.? and Persian Gulf since ancient civilizations, due to lack of culture in Arabian Peninsula, always was an essential and Inseparable part of Iran... which strike me as eerily similar to some remarks @HNiPS wrote while editing which makes me question whether it's WP:Advocacy? and if @HNiPS was promoting the conspiracy theory website. Regardless, even the article they have used lead us to nowhere with the whole redirection fiasco, and the article seems to confuse the Gulf of Oman with the Arabian Sea which looks like a pattern as well (So should we make Gulf of Oman a third option?/JK).
- Finally, I agree with @Tamzin and @Tol that whatever the outcome is, some form of protection is needed for the redirection pages. It looks like @EdJohnston have just protected the main article as well. And sorry for the wall-of-text y'all it became my habit :p — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe Arabian Sea should be redirected because the body of water officially is Arabia sea . the big problem is that historically in persian and Arabic text and deeds it was called persian sea (Bahre fars=bahre Ajam) and some text called it macran sea until 18 century. and the Turks call it Oman sea so only this historical facts should be written and told to readers of the Arabian sea . if this have been done then not necessary to redirect to any other page . reading persian text or Arabic text by google is not correct and you should not judge the article by google translate the sentences that you thing is not reliable or 'odd' remarks in that article infact are mentioned from medieval geographical Arabic text book and it is history text not for any judgment. but the researchers should know the background of the name of [[Arabian sea] we should not Censorship or omitting the historical issues and facts is not the work of Wikipedia 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)
- I originally wrote this in reply to A Contemporary Nomad on my talk page but this belongs here. I'm going by the Persian Gulf naming dispute article, which describes various historic names that different cultures have assigned to various bodies of water around the Arabian peninsula since antiquity. I have no interest in trying to "settle" the dispute, that's not Wikipedia's purpose, and I'm just assuming that the articles on the bodies of water (Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, also the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean come up in this) are appropriately titled, despite all of those bodies of water having had different names in the past. Basically, I looked at the gallery of maps in that article for any appearances of "Persian Sea" or "Mare Persicus" (many of the maps are Latin). Those are:
- File:Basra-ps64.JPG: "Persian Sea" marks what we call the Arabian Sea
- File:Map of persia.jpg: same as above
- File:Persian(IRAN) Empire 1747.jpg: same as above
- File:Asia_in_the_shape_of_the_mythical_winged_horse_Pegasus..jpg: this one has a Mare Persicum (Persian Sea) and a Sinus Persicus (Persian Gulf), as well as a separate Oceanus Indicus (Indian Ocean), but it's not clear what bodies of water are being represented since the map is rendered in the shape of a horse. (Unrelated: Two Medieval Monks Invent Maps)
- File:Amsterdam1685..jpg: this one has Sinus Persicus for the Persian Gulf, and Golfo di Persia for the northern part of the Indian Ocean that we describe in Arabian Sea, as well as a separate Mare Arabicum. This one is strange because "Golfo di Persia" is in (I think) Italian while everything else on this map is labelled in Latin.
- File:Detailed_map_of_Asia..jpg: same as above except Golfo di Persia is Mare Persicum here. On this one it kind of looks like Mare Persicum includes the Gulf of Oman while Mare Arabicum includes the Gulf of Aden.
- Those are all the ones in that gallery that have a body of water labelled Persian Sea or Mare Persicum, and the body of water labelled is always what Wikipedia describes as the Arabian Sea. It is never, not once, used to label the Persian Gulf - the gulf is occasionally labelled a sea or mare but never the Persian sea. It could be that Arabic maritime terminology doesn't distinguish between a sea and a gulf in the same way that western European languages tend to, but I can't comment on that.
- I know this is WP:OR but it's all the evidence I can come up with for where the redirect should point. The many historical names for the other bodies of water are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector I think you misunderstood me I'm not against redirecting the articles to the Arabian Sea nor am I interested in settling the matter either.
- As for the maps if I'm not mistaken 1 2 3 4 could also be referring to the Gulf of Oman. And I'm pretty certain that this one File:Amsterdam1685..jpg is pointing at the Gulf of Oman. This is also consistent with the article used by the WP:WAR parties that specifically points out that the Gulf of Oman was called the Sea of Makran and the Persian Sea although that website is WP:QS but it does give us a glimpse on what the nationalists argue for. Excerpts from the article: 'Mokran Sea (Oman sea) is located in southeast of Iran which, in fact, is the continuation of Indian Ocean. It is limited to Iran’s coast from north and to Arabia Sea and Oman from south.' 'There are about 10 ancient maps from Greeks, which named the Mokran Sea and Persian Gulf together as the Pars Sea. But after Arabs raid to Iran, and because Iranian have lost their previous political powers, many changes have been made in geographical names of Iran’s Sea' This part was also copied directly from the article and posted in the introduction. And here the article author points out that writers and researchers should use the name in reply to Arabs nonsense about "South of Persian Gulf"?: However, given the fact that the most coast of this sea is located in Iran and great civilization such as Shahr-e SoKhte, and Jiroft, which were from second millenary B.C and located here, so it is worthy to get its real name “Mokran” and writers and researchers should use this historic name in reply to Arabs' nonsense talking about south of Persian Gulf.
- @Ivanvector: The many historical names for the other bodies of water are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think anyone suggested that or brought it up if I'm not mistaken. As for drawing connection between the maps and the redirect being WP:OR I do agree. But most importantly doesn't this bring the Gulf of Oman into the confusion as well? Before ending my comment I just wanted to stress again that I'm not taking a position in this debate and in fact was actually leaning toward @Ivanvector argument solely for the gulf-sea naming issue but I also wanted to be skeptic toward the nationalist position which I think the closer have to take into account as well. It could be that Arabic maritime terminology doesn't distinguish between a sea and a gulf in the same way that western European languages tend to. I'm pretty sure Arabs did distinguish between Ocean محيط - Sea بحر - Gulf خليج - and even Bay جون. For example Medieval Arab historians referred to the Persian Gulf as Khaleeji-Al-Ajam (Gulf of the Ajams) Ajam means foreign but also came to refer to Persians specifically. The Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean was called Al-Bahr Al-Akhdar (The green sea) and the Atlantic Ocean as Muheet Al-Dulmat (The dark ocean) Muheet also means 'never ending reaches'. But I'm not sure what Arabic let alone classical Arabic has to do with this argument or the English Wikipedia article names? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Arabic terminology matters if it could cause confusion in its translation into English. For example if these words all translated into basically the same word in a foreign language then it would make sense that translating back into English would cause confusion as to which Persian [body of water] the name refers to, among speakers of the foreign language. I agree that does not appear to be the case here. As for the Gulf of Oman, you're right that several of these maps include it in what they label "Persian Sea", but none of them apply the label to just the Gulf of Oman, so I still think Arabian Sea is the better target.
- The idea that the entire area has in the past been referred to as one body of water named "Persian Sea" has some merit: it essentially follows the Greeks' naming of everything from the Red Sea through to the Persian Gulf and much of the maritime route to India as the Erythraean Sea, though I don't think that's a suitable target either as it's about ancient Greek geography and doesn't mention Persian influence at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps a disambiguation page? Persian sea → Persian Sea → Persian Sea (disambiguation). List the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and the Erythraean Sea articles with a short description. And a hatnote to the Persian Gulf article? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- My problem with disambiguating is lack of information at the possible target articles. That is, we can generally see that several different bodies of water have been called "Persian Sea" in history, but there's little discussion of it on Wikipedia other than passing mentions, quotes in historical bios (e.g. Qatif mentions it in a quote which is clearly referring to the Persian Gulf), and things that SPAs have edited to articles like Gulf of Oman without any sourcing. An ideal solution perhaps is to create a set index article encyclopedically discussing the situation, with any reliable sources we're able to find. I'm wary of the "Persian Gulf Studies" source - I think there's some good info there but I also think it's clearly holding an Iranian nationalist POV. If we can find a better variety of sources like that, then we could be on to something. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't see much of a difference between disambiguating or going WP:SIA here. A disambiguation page might have the benefit of not needing to find sources and leave that to the destination pages, much like the situation at the Arabian Gulf page — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well yes, that's kind of my point: most of the appearances of "Persian Sea" in articles that we could disambiguate are currently entirely unsourced. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't see much of a difference between disambiguating or going WP:SIA here. A disambiguation page might have the benefit of not needing to find sources and leave that to the destination pages, much like the situation at the Arabian Gulf page — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- My problem with disambiguating is lack of information at the possible target articles. That is, we can generally see that several different bodies of water have been called "Persian Sea" in history, but there's little discussion of it on Wikipedia other than passing mentions, quotes in historical bios (e.g. Qatif mentions it in a quote which is clearly referring to the Persian Gulf), and things that SPAs have edited to articles like Gulf of Oman without any sourcing. An ideal solution perhaps is to create a set index article encyclopedically discussing the situation, with any reliable sources we're able to find. I'm wary of the "Persian Gulf Studies" source - I think there's some good info there but I also think it's clearly holding an Iranian nationalist POV. If we can find a better variety of sources like that, then we could be on to something. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps a disambiguation page? Persian sea → Persian Sea → Persian Sea (disambiguation). List the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and the Erythraean Sea articles with a short description. And a hatnote to the Persian Gulf article? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: The many historical names for the other bodies of water are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think anyone suggested that or brought it up if I'm not mistaken. As for drawing connection between the maps and the redirect being WP:OR I do agree. But most importantly doesn't this bring the Gulf of Oman into the confusion as well? Before ending my comment I just wanted to stress again that I'm not taking a position in this debate and in fact was actually leaning toward @Ivanvector argument solely for the gulf-sea naming issue but I also wanted to be skeptic toward the nationalist position which I think the closer have to take into account as well. It could be that Arabic maritime terminology doesn't distinguish between a sea and a gulf in the same way that western European languages tend to. I'm pretty sure Arabs did distinguish between Ocean محيط - Sea بحر - Gulf خليج - and even Bay جون. For example Medieval Arab historians referred to the Persian Gulf as Khaleeji-Al-Ajam (Gulf of the Ajams) Ajam means foreign but also came to refer to Persians specifically. The Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean was called Al-Bahr Al-Akhdar (The green sea) and the Atlantic Ocean as Muheet Al-Dulmat (The dark ocean) Muheet also means 'never ending reaches'. But I'm not sure what Arabic let alone classical Arabic has to do with this argument or the English Wikipedia article names? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambig. Persian Sea seems like a perfect candidate for a disambiguation page, listing all possible meanings of the name, with Persian sea redirecting to it. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- As helpful as A Contemporary Nomad's and Ivanvector's research has been, I think looking at ancient maps was a distraction. This clearly concerns a national-political dispute, probably the Iran–Saudi one. We don't need to make Persian Sea into a disambiguation page because ancient people who didn't really understand the geography used their terms imprecisely. Everyone here is clearly using Persian Sea for the Arabian one; let's just retarget there, tag it from {{R from alternative name}} or maybe {{R from non-neutral name}}, protect the redirects, add a hatnote pointing to Persian Gulf, and be done. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the first, retarget the second to Arabian Sea per Ivanvector. Ideally, we could add this name to Arabian Sea#Alternative names, which will both improve the article generally and help prevent this from coming up again at RfD down the road. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @BDD: I think you mean retarget the first (which currently targets Persian Gulf), keep the second (which currently already targets Arabian Sea)? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Persian Gulf (or rather not Arabian Sea). There's no easy answer here: even scholarly research can't help (as editors above note) unless you read English, Arabic and Persian and understand the local context. At the heart of this is that Arabs won't say the Persian Gulf in the same way that the French won't say the English Channel, but with more enmity. Farsi Wikipedia's article for Arabian Sea is دریای_عرب (Arabian Sea), and دریای فارس (Persian Sea) redirects to خلیج فارس (Persian Gulf). On the other side of the waters, in Arabic Wikipedia, بحر فارس (Persian Sea) redirects to خليج عمان (Gulf of Oman). This would indicate that in neither Farsi nor Arabic is "Persian Sea" used to mean "Arabian Sea"; a translation from Farsi is likely to refer to Persian Gulf; a translation from Arabic is likely to refer to Gulf of Oman. Take your pick. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- From the earlier discussion, I recall that the Gulf of Oman is only ever called the Persian Sea when it's viewed as part of the same body of water as what we call the Arabian Sea (i.e. Persian Sea refers to both concurrently). I'm sure this doesn't help anything. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Chyalothrin
- Chyalothrin → Cyhalothrin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is not an alternative name for Cyhalothrin, and no mention of it is found in the article. It is not a likely misspelling nor a likely search term, as there have been zero pageviews in the past 90 days. No reason to keep an obvious error that nobody searches for. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 04:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, fairly common misspelling. Gets a non-bot number of views. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, despite one reason for the misspelling being that "y" and "h" are adjacent on typewriter keyboard. Unlikely that anyone would actually believe this is the correct spelling. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite what J947 queries, this is not a common spelling. Google Ngrams [6] shows that it is not used in any notable publications. Bibeyjj (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete- I'm not sure what J947 is seeing, the pageviews tool shows zero hits. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- I see 100 pageviews all time, which isn't a lot but nevertheless is about 40 people (excluding bots) helped by this redirect. J947's public account 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never bother to go back more than 90 days, but you're right, the hits are there. Supposedly the new tool filters bot hits, so if it's working right then those are all human views. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've got a theory that sometime around late 2019 a change came to the tool to filter bot hits better, as there's often a pageview drop around that time – whereas I don't think the actual number of readers has reduced. I don't think that the tool filters out bot views perfectly, but it may well filter out more than I realise. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I recall that being a feature of this new tool right from its deployment, which was to replace an older tool in 2015 if I'm remembering right. It should correspond with the oldest date you can check in the new tool, and I believe the old one is now offline. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've got a theory that sometime around late 2019 a change came to the tool to filter bot hits better, as there's often a pageview drop around that time – whereas I don't think the actual number of readers has reduced. I don't think that the tool filters out bot views perfectly, but it may well filter out more than I realise. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I never bother to go back more than 90 days, but you're right, the hits are there. Supposedly the new tool filters bot hits, so if it's working right then those are all human views. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see 100 pageviews all time, which isn't a lot but nevertheless is about 40 people (excluding bots) helped by this redirect. J947's public account 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the struck vote and discussion directly above: a few people use it, and I don't see how it's harmful to keep it for those rare uses. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RFD#K2. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
June 5
Complex variables (disambiguation)
- Complex variables (disambiguation) → Complex variables (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It seemed like I didn't need this page because complex variables are already disambiguating or redirecting. Also, it is currently a double redirect. I started the discussion because there may be some objections to changing Complex variables to redirects. --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep You were the one who redirected the disambiguation page at the title. This was a bad move on your part. You seemingly also did a WP:CPMOVE of the target to Several complex variables, which is now a malformed disambig that doesn't distinguish topics with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Several complex variables and complex analysis have been considered for merge once, and it is ambiguous whether to limit complex analysis to one variable. Sure, for a different reason than disambiguating complex variables, but I didn't copy it. Several complex variables are certainly extensions of one-complex variable analysis to multiple variables, but limiting the scope to analysis alone seems a bit narrow. Another reason I would to make it clear that we didn't change the category name. That is, not only as a short name for the Function of several complex variables, but also as a field name. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment "complex variables" should be revert to its 2012 revision, and marked as a set index instead of a disambiguation page. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- CommentAlternatively, redirect complex variables to complex analysis and provide a hat note at the beginning of the complex analysis. Currently, complex analysis seems to mainly explain one-variable complex functions, and has the effect of clarifying this as a side effect.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I support SilverMatsu's previous comment of making Complex variables redirect to Complex analysis. Note that the term "complex analysis" itself carries the same subtlety as "complex variables", where it can broadly mean both complex analysis in one variable and several variables, but commonly refers specifically to the one-variable theory. So I think Complex analysis is the primary topic. The manner/degree to which functions of several complex variables are mentioned there can be left up to editorial judgment on that page. Alternatively, I think the status quo is the second-best option and also reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Retarget to Complex analysis with a hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)struck Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: While the consensus appears to be to retarget to Complex analysis, that is not a disambiguation page so this redirect would then be subject to speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G14) and nobody appears to favour deletion so I'm relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Shhhnotsoloud, Adumbrativus, SilverMatsu, Compassionate727, and LaundryPizza03: see relisting comment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Complex analysis, and with hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Also delete "Complex variables (disambiguation)"
per Thryduulf.--SilverMatsu (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- @SilverMatsu: I'm not advocating for or against retargetting (or anything else) here, just pointing out that in this case a recommendation to retarget is effectively a recommendation to delete. Accordingly "Retarget per Thryduulf" is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Correct my comment above.--SilverMatsu (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SilverMatsu: I'm not advocating for or against retargetting (or anything else) here, just pointing out that in this case a recommendation to retarget is effectively a recommendation to delete. Accordingly "Retarget per Thryduulf" is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Close this RfD and continue discussing at an appropriate venue. Guys, you're all discussing the wrong thing in the wrong place. This RfD is about the redirect Complex variables (disambiguation), which is required for technical reasons per WP:INTDABLINK, and there's no reason to delete it as long as Complex variables is set up as a disambiguation page. The renaming and/or reorganisation of content should be discussed at the talk pages or the affected articles or of WikiProject Mathematics. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Self-trout —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose quick closure. I have already inform. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- SilverMatsu, please read my above comment again. This is not the place to discuss what to do with Complex variables. That should be done at Talk:Complex variables, since it is not currently a redirect. This RfD is about Complex variables (disambiguation), which is an automatically created technical redirect. If and when Complex variables is no longer a disambiguation page, Complex variables (disambiguation) can be tag for speedy deletion as G14. But as long as it's a disambiguation page, the (disambiguation) redirect must remain. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand this, but I made a discussion page anyway. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Retarget Complex variables to Complex analysis. Do we need a ping?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- SilverMatsu, please read my above comment again. This is not the place to discuss what to do with Complex variables. That should be done at Talk:Complex variables, since it is not currently a redirect. This RfD is about Complex variables (disambiguation), which is an automatically created technical redirect. If and when Complex variables is no longer a disambiguation page, Complex variables (disambiguation) can be tag for speedy deletion as G14. But as long as it's a disambiguation page, the (disambiguation) redirect must remain. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose quick closure. I have already inform. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Paul_012 —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and also blank and redirect Complex variables to Complex analysis with a hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (which is what I meant to say, and may be what @SilverMatsu: meant too. Sorry @Thryduulf:. )
TCC Group
- TCC Group → Taiwan Cement (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A Google search reveals many entities known by this name, though few appear to be covered by Wikipedia. I don't see Taiwan Cement among the results, though. Most mentions on Wikipedia (including one incorrect incoming link) appear to be for TCC Group (Thai company), which redirects to Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, so maybe this redirect should be retargeted there instead, as an R with possibilities. Paul_012 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with nom on Google results and Wikipedia mentions. However the Thai page is properly disambiguated and the Taiwan page does have a hatnote to the Thai page. The Taiwan page is not a proper target as it's about Taiwan Cement Corporation which is only one part of the group which is a conglomerate depicted in their website. Also, I believe the terms TCC and TCC Group may have been used interchangeably, as where the group started off from was the cement company. The Thai page is a worse target as it is of a person, not the group of companies. Hence, what we have now is fine, and relist when sometime in the future, Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi is forked and has its own standalone article for the Thai group. - Jay Talk 15:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Jay's analysis, and the target page now does a better job of covering TCC Group. It still needs more work. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 Hospital
- COVID-19 Hospital → SevenHills Hospital#COVID-19 hospital (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is too specific a topic for the redirect title. feminist (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment At one point, this page did have text on it: [7]. However, I agree that the current target should be deleted or changed; perhaps Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment to me this title refers to hospitals specifically set up for COVID-19, like the NHS Nightingale hospitals, or the insta-build hospitals in China, and not a specific hospital in particular. If this article is to exist, it should be a list of such hospitals or point to such a list. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- With a quick search, I found two articles on temporary hospitals with a COVID focus: Fangcang hospital for China, and COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom. I don't think we have anything on temporary buildings or structures generally (hence my nomination of Temporary structure above), let alone hospitals. The base COVID-19 pandemic has links to the British and Chinese uses, but would require further searching to locate within the article. Besides the current target, Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic has relevant content, so maybe the best solution would be a disambiguation page, which could eventually progress (perhaps via WP:CONCEPTDAB) to a real article. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Unsuitable redirect (and bad caps for an article/dab-page title) since there are too many possible meanings. Whether any of the proposed alternatives are more acceptable is another question. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Disambig per BDD with at least COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Hospital ships involved in the COVID-19 pandemic, Fangcang hospital and a link to the category listed. Pedantically the dab should be at a title something like Covid-19 hospitals but wherever the dab is this title is a useful search term than should redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Renameto Covid-19 hospitals per Thryduulf. And that canredirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitalsper AllegedlyHuman. I would like to see that article dealing with new hospitals set up for Covid as well as existing hospitals modified to treat Covid. Jay (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)- WP:MOVEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- No clue on what that guide is trying to say, however I changed the vote to clarify what I meant by rename. Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moving preserves page history, and the redirect has a lot because it was a merge with the target, before the redirect happened. Jay (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- No clue on what that guide is trying to say, however I changed the vote to clarify what I meant by rename. Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support all the disambig & retarget to the DAB page Covid-19 hospitals votes. Jay (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Someone can create a disambiguation page or SIA at Covid-19 hospitals if they wish. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per Thryduulf. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Hospitals, where this is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Create DAB at COVID-19 hospital with the contents described by Thryduulf. Retarget this there. Although perhaps that's semantics, since if this is dabified anyone can just move it as a normal WP:TITLE-compliance matter. I'll note, though, that I think there's quite likely a valid full-fledged article to be had on this topic, and hope that the DAB page becomes that eventually. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 20:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Hospitals per Tavix. I support some sort of disambiguation ultimately, and a temporary hospital isn't necessarily connected to a shortage, but as a temporary (ha!) solution, retargeting sounds good. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: note this is an involved relisting to close the 11 May log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate or delete. Far too generic a term to refer to a single hospital. JIP | Talk 23:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and do not create a dab page. Too many hospitals serve that purpose. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Move page history to COVID-19 Hospital (SevenHills Hospital) (or a talk subpage) to preserve pre-merge page history, and either delete the currently named redirect or disambiguate per BDD. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Gaza genocide
- Gaza genocide → Gaza War (2008–2009) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not a neutral wording. Not linked from anywhere. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unaware of any reliable sources that consider this particular conflict to be genocidal. If so, why this one and not the other dozen+ conflicts in Gaza. Makes no sense. -- GreenC 03:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10 § Gaza Holocaust. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gaza War (a DAB page which has a see-also to the Gaza conflict DAB), mirroring precedent with Gaza Holocaust, and tag as {{r non-neutral}}. Google results suggest that this term is used at least occasionally, in fact probably more often than "Gaza Holocaust", but also that it's not clearly used to refer to one incident more than any other. (Retargeting to "Gaza conflict" would also be reasonable; if that's the consensus, someone should re-RFD "Gaza Holocaust".) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 05:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Incorrect term for the conflict. Negligible page views. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict report did not mention this as a genocide. WP:RNEUTRAL does not apply. The redirect was created as a new page redirect by a now inactive user who, at the same time created the redirect Gaza massacre (which was subsequently retargeted to List of massacres in the Palestinian territories, which is fine for that redirect, but not for one that says genocide). Jay (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Retarget. A quick Google search of "Gaza genocide" returned links to a book available via Springer and a document published by a major advocacy group (Center for Constitutional Rights), so the term has at least a little bit of currency among scholars. I'm not convinced that Gaza conflict is the best target; I would prefer to target it somewhere that discusses Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which is somewhat frequently accused of amounting to ethnic cleansing. (Genocide and ethnic cleansing aren't the same, of course, but the former is sometimes used by demagogues to speak of the latter.) However, our collection of articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict is rather sprawling, so I'm not sure where to look for that information. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- I find BDD's arguments compelling, so I'm changing my vote to delete. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gaza War; I largely agree with Compassionate727's reasoning, but further believe that by including "Gaza" in the search term, the reader is almost certainly looking for one of the wars in that region, rather than Israeli treatment of Palestinians more broadly. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I don't want to second-guess the "Gaza Holocaust" close, but this should really point somewhere where accusations of genocide vis-à-vis Palestinians are discussed. I was surprised to not be able to find such content on Wikipedia currently. The closest thing I could find was The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, but that's a specific book. Retargeting to Gaza War is far too squishy for me, because what are we suggesting? Each one is a genocide? Taken together, they add up to a genocide? That blasts past WP:RNEUTRAL into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and note that the only thing close to a mention of genocide at any of those articles is a quotation at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis about "genocidal songs of vengeance". --BDD (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Tinkling
The article Urination does not say that tinkling is a euphemism for urination (in fact it describes tinkling as a sound). I don't think having this redirect is helpful and a better target may be soft redirect to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Soft retarget to wiktionary:tinkling --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate it is indeed urination [8][9][10] -- therefore, disambiguate between unrination (and is already indicated in wiktionary at wikt:en:tinkle which indicates the verb for tinkling); and tinkling sound, which is a type of harmonic oscillation (ringing), so Harmonic oscillator -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as it can just as easily refer to the sound. MB 16:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary - there's more and better information there than there is on Wikipedia. Urination mentions tinkling as a sound, but I can't find any target which describes the sound in any kind of detail; harmonic oscillator is an article about physical mechanics and doesn't describe a tinkling sound nor any sound at all. Any disambiguation we could create would just be a poor WP:DICDEF substitute for what's already written on Wiktionary. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate It might also mean telephoning or working as a tinker. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Ivanvector. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or disambiguate. I think the current target is the primary topic, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus here, so disambiguate the topics mentioned above and include the Wiktionary link there. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
WWAFAWDWG?
- WWAFAWDWG? → When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_25#WWAFAWDWG -- dylx 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill, Daybeers, MaranoFan, AngusWOOF, and Rubbish computer: pinging users who participated in the previous discussion. -- dylx 12:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the previous consensus. The addition of a question mark does not make a significant difference. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. A google news search shows a few sites using this acronym to refer to the album, the version without the question mark seems to have been used as a twitter hashtag to promote the album, and it doesn't seem to be ambiguous with anything else. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Mostly fanmade acronym that is of no encyclopedic significance, not mentioned at target.--NØ 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Presumably nothing else this could refer to. Harmless, and possibly helpful. --BDD (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete essentially as a matter of stare decisis. I think I would have !voted keep in the past RFD, but given that it closed as unanimous delete, and that it's only been two years since then, this outcome should mirror that one. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. The previous discussion bears no more importance than this one. If this discussion results in a keep then WWAFAWDWG should be recreated. Consensus can change. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Kobe Jones
- Kobe Jones → 2021 Atlanta Falcons season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no need for this redirect (and potentially stops this page from being filled out if need be) Debartolo2917 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The redirect can always be boldly turned into an article once he plays a regulation game. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Revert back to being a misspelling redirect for Cobi Jones, the status quo since 2007. If the other Jones becomes notable, it can be overwritten with an article. Either way, there's a long precedent of deleting redirects to season articles so the current set up is unhelpful. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Atlanta Falcons#Current roster. I don't know if there's a usual practice for NFL players, but this one surprisingly isn't an WP:XY situation where he's also on college team pages, development leagues, etc. Unless this is wildly against our normal practice, this seems like an acceptable {{R from subtopic}}. --BDD (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify until he plays a professional game. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Pseudophysics
Porte des Lions
- Porte des Lions → Pavillon de Flore (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target or its corresponding frWiki page, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment frWiki does not list it at fr:Porte des Lions -- however it does seem to exist [11][12][13] -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Louvre Palace (and remove the circular wikilink that will result). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Str rt
- Template:Str rt → Template:Str right (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused, unclear template redirect. User:GKFXtalk 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- keep spelling variation, as "str" is clearly abbreviation for "string", rt is clearly abbreviation for "right"; and a commonly used abbreviation for right. (indeed, some programming languages use RT instead of RIGHT) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned above the
Str_
part is OK and fits a convention, it's thert
that I object to. I wouldn't expect people to search forrt
if they meant "right", and it would not be that clear if part of template markup. User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)- RT is a common abbreviation for right, so I would think that some people would search this way, and it probably is a WP:CHEAP redirect as it is. RT is a recognized abbreviation for right [14] and found in some programming languages [15] ; so I think it is a reasoanble redirect and search term -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned above the
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no similar redirect for Template:Str left, so I think this is more confusing than clarifying. --Bsherr (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Moues
See related nominations of Trcuk and Baketsball. WP:AFFINITY. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is the plural of moue, retarget to facial expression as such. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous and likely to lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Snout reflex, where "pout" and "pouting" is explained. Also retarget moue to the same place. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've started an RfD for Moue because there are a number of options really. J947's public account 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Jay (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to snout reflex per anon IP. An unlikely typo for "mouse", with hardly any incoming links. JIP | Talk 23:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_7#Moue was initiated recently and consensus so far is to have that redirect to the Glossary of French expressions in English. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Gender and Sexual Minorities
- Gender and Sexual Minorities → LGBT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gender and Sexual Minority → LGBT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gender and/or Sexual Minority → LGBT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gender and/or sexual minority → LGBT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gender and/or Sexual Minorities → LGBT (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
While the term usually refers to LGBT people, I think Sexual minority is probably a better redirect (and probably should be lowercase) Bangalamania (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Just had a look and there seem to be a lot of similar redirects using the GSM acronym or similar to link to LGBT. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: As is, Sexual minority (SM) seems to have been experiencing an identity crisis since 2015, when GSM and its variants were first introduced to the article. Here's a diff comparing that first edit to the current revision. Much has been added about sexual minorities and almost none about GSM. LGBT discusses the origin of the term GSM and some modern usage, but SM does not. Then again, LGBT gives SM "main article" treatment in its GSM section. In the SM controversy section, one of the major criticisms of the term sexual minority is from gender minorities, and no mention is made of the GSM term at all. These are all fixable problems, but it seems there are at least two possible fixes:Two key questions for deciding between the options are "Is there enough verifiable content out there to justify a standalone GSM article?" and "How would we prevent a GSM article from being a content fork of LGBT?" Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Add more about GSM to the SM article, possibly enough so that there should be a move or split to Gender and Sexual Minorities, or
- Keep SM about its titular topic and keep LGBT as both the repository of GSM info and the target of this redirect.
- My preference would be the first option (as you say, the LGBT article does say that SM is the main article on the subject, and the term does have a broader scope than LGBT(QIAP+) – and intentionally so), although I am aware that the term "gender and sexual minorities" or its variants may not have wide enough currency in reliable sources to justify a change in the article's title, and I'm not sure how much content there is to justify a separate article. It is worth noting that the criticism from trans/gender minority groups seems to be unreferenced.
- Possibly adding to the confusion here, but articles on sexual minorities in specific countries on Wikipedia (Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka, Sexual minorities in Japan) seem to use the term to refer to trans people too, although both of these countries are non-Western and so may have different ways of categorising gender and sexuality. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- As yet another confusion, "sexual minority"/"sexual minor" can refer to someone/the state of being below the age of consent for sexual activity. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:XY and WP:RFD#D1. "Gender minority" and "sexual minority" describe related, but distinct, topics. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)- "Gender and Sexual Minorities" is an actual medical term, though, so XY doesn't really apply. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given the number of books and scholar hits for the exact phrase it's abundantly clear that WP:XY and WP:R#D1 are not at all relevant here. I'm not sure what the best thing to do with the redirect is, but deletion for those reasons is not it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, struck my ill-informed comment. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to sexual minority. I see that scholarly work on this topic often refers to "sexual and gender minority" rather than the arrangement here, and while we don't have a redirect for that arrangement, it is listed as an alternate name for the study of the topic covered by the sexual minority article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This redirect is not currently being used in articles according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Gender_and_Sexual_Minorities. Also, we have no identified sources establishing this as a term or phrase in use. Without citations and without usage I say delete without redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
we have no identified sources
. Except for all the Google Books/Scholar references that Thryduulf mentioned... -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The lede of sexual minority notes that it primarily refers to "LGB" individuals. The inclusion of "gender" here is important, as it extends the term to transgender and other non-cisgender/non-gender-conforming people. This is a term in current usage in the LGBTQ+ community, and I've only ever heard it used as a synonym for LGBT(Q)(+). Also, procedural note: Gender and Sexual Minority exists, redirecting to the same target. I hesitate to list it when two people have already !voted, but as a common-sense matter, the close here should probably apply to it as well. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 00:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Could we also add Gender and/or Sexual Minority, Gender and/or Sexual Minorities, and Gender and/or sexual minority? I believe they should all share a target page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all to sexual minority which seems to have a number of bolded groupings and acronyms since March, prior to the RFD [16]. Most likely target. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Sea trade route
- Sea trade route → History of Kedah (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Maritime trade route → Trade route#Maritime trade (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sea route → Sea lane (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Maritime trade → Maritime history (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sea trade → Trade route#Predominantly maritime routes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Ocean trade → Trade route#Predominantly maritime routes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I'm not sure that sea trade routes were exclusive to Kedah. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree this needs retargetting, but I'm not sure what the best target is. Sea lane is probably the most focused, but it's a thin article that doesn't deal with everything someone may be looking for. Trade route is more comprehensive but not focused on sea routes, and as the primary organisation is chronological maritime routes are covered in multiple sections so it wouldn't be possible to refine it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's a number of conflicting redirects here: Maritime trade route, Maritime trade, Ocean trade, and Sea trade have three different targets between the four of them. I've added all four. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Make that four targets for five, with Sea route. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- A lot of chronological stuff, which isn't helpful for these redirects. But surely there's an article to be written here about sea trade. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1, 2, & 3 to Sea lane, which I think covers this topic fairly well. That article should probably link to Trade route § Predominantly maritime routes, but that's fixable easily enough. 4, 5, & 6 to Maritime transport, although I'm less sure on that one. I agree with J947 that there's room for an article (or two) here. But they can be {{r with possibilities}} for now. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1,2,3->Sea lane, 4,5,6->Maritime transport per Tamzin. A dedicated article on maritime trade exists between those two articles, and Maritime transport links to Sea lane already. CMD (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose the Sea lane and Maritime transport targets. Sea lane is not WP:Globalized, merely covering early modern and modern routes from the western perspective (specifically only from the Age of Sail). It's a "definition" article, mainly just saying what a sea lane is, not what historical or existing sea lanes there are. Trade route is still the most comprehensive target for all of them, if you're asking for topics on maritime trade, regardless if it also covers trade by land. Maritime transport deals with the vessels used in modern shipping, not maritime trade in and of itself. People who use those search terms are looking for both historical and modern trade routes by sea, as well as methods by which trade by sea is/was accomplished. A target which doesn't cover those is insufficient. The best option would probably be a disambiguation listing, at the very least: Trade route, Sea lane, and Maritime transport.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1, 2, & 3 to Sea lane. While I agree that the Sea lane article is undeveloped, it seems to be the best fit, and I would hope that this discussion would encourage that development, rather than more carping. On the other hand,I agree with OBSIDIAN† in that I see no role for Maritime transport as a target here. Sea lane correctly has Trade route as a see also entry. As to the last three (4, 5, & 6) trade items, I believe they are correct as is (given current articles), but are a very separate discussion. A comprehensive article on Sea trade aka Maritime trade is clearly called for. The Maritime history article is extensive, but does not focus on trade, although, other than fishing, trade (and those who prey on trade) seems to have been the major focus of peacetime maritime activities. Development of a focused Maritime trade article could be assisted by books like A history of early Southeast Asia: maritime trade and societal development, 100-1500; Rome and India: the ancient sea trade; Sánchez's Merchants and trade networks in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, 1550-1800 connectors of commercial maritime systems; The emporium of the world: maritime Quanzhou, 1000-1400; Emporia, commodities and entrepreneurs in Asian maritime trade, c. 1400-1750; Sewell's Grain: carriage by sea; International shipping: an introduction to the policies, politics, and institutions of the maritime world; Reeves's A history of the law of shipping and navigation and Rivalry for trade in tea and textiles: the English and Dutch East India Companies (1700-1800). Fugazza's Maritime connectivity and trade covering 2006-2012 would provide a recent perspective. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bejnar: I'd like to point out that only your redirect linked to Sea lane, and it is the only one of the entries that do not have the word "trade" in it, and thus it's an outlier. None of the alternative names for "Sea lane" also contain the word "trade". All the redirects were created by different people, yet three originally linked to Trade route (including mine), which is a pretty good indication of what the consensus of the context is. To put it simply: A sea lane, is not only used for trading. A trade route is. If a disambiguation is not viable, I'd actually rather go with all of them to Trade route, except Sea route. I would also like to emphatically stress that I'm not carping, haha. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: More discussion is required primarily for #4, #5, and #6. There seems to be a consensus to point #1, #2, and #3 to Sea lane.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Katie Britt
- Katie Britt → Richard Shelby (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- According to [17], Katie Britt is President & CEO of the Business Council of Alabama, and was previously Richard Shelby's press secretary/campaign manager/chief of staff. She's not notable on her own and there's no info on her at the target, so delete. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
:I raise no objection to this page being deleted, so delete unless Katie Britt is a candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, which is likely. Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I changed the redirect target to 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, because Britt has an announcement pending for that election. Do we need to delete this now? Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wesley Britt#Personal life. - Jay Talk 20:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wesley Britt per Jay. Tag R from spouse and R with possibilities until she gets elected. A draft can be developed to see if she has enough articles to be independently notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Oulo
Implausible search term, mainly a typo for "Oulu". Created twelve years ago by a user who was since blocked indefinitely for vandalism. The redirect had only four incoming links, three for the city of Oulu and one for an entirely unrelated Tatar ruler. I have fixed them all. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 22:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Does Finland have any other place named Oulo? A Google search for "Oulo Finland" returns 84,000 results and looking at the few initial results, it does mention Oulo, Finland as a place. Jay (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Oulo is the name of at least one populated place in Burkina Faso (fr:Oulo has it in Sahel Region, at least one other source has it in Boucle du Mouhoun Region ]https://www.mindat.org/feature-2356900.html]) and a region/place and forest in Sudan ([18][19]). The primary topics in search results though are for a British clothing/yoga accessory retailer and a Lebanese app (although I don't think either are notable based on a first look). If the African places didn't exist then I would be happy to support this as an apparently common misspelling but not in the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment it can be retargeted to Dori Department, where the Burkina Faso village is now mentioned, and a hatnote added for Finland -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search for the other 19 mentions of "Oulo" in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of the 19 mentions, I fixed one more mention of the Finland place. The tatar ruler is Emperor Shizong or Wulu but referred by Ezra Pound in the Cantos as Oulo. Of the remaining, I see article potential for 2 mentions - the Burkina Faso village that 67.70.27.180 added and the Cameroon artist Idy Oulo. Jay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- That just seems to indicate that it should be disambiguated -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still at delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
MKSA system
- MKSA system → Giovanni Giorgi#MKSA (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- MKSA → Giovanni Giorgi#MKSA (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- MKSA system of units → Giovanni Giorgi#MKSA (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These redirects should rather redirected to MKS system of units or to a section of International System of Units, since these articles are more directly related to the topic (MKSA is an extension of MKS and the base of SI) and since Giorgi did not directly propose this exact system, he proposed a system with any practical electrical unit as a fourth base (so MKSV or MKSΩ would also be consistent with his proposal). --Lukflug (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. In the current state of affairs a section in the MKS system of units or the Giovanni Giorgi article would, IMO, both be appropriate targets for the redirects. The International System of Units article, however, seems to be too off-topic already. When I created those redirects I linked MKSA to the Giorgi article because it had (and still has) a little bit more information about the topic than the MKS article, however, this is something that might change over time through normal article development, and, from a logical point of view, the MKS article might be the slightly better target long-term.
- So, I can support switching the target link to point to a section of the MKS system of units article if we add a dedicated MKSA link to the Giorgi article and decide that, for adding more information on MKSA in the future, the MKS article would be the better place, given that MKSA is, in fact, only one of the possible systems suggested by Giorgi. However, in the current state of affairs I still do not see a strong need to switch the target, so I'd also be happy if we keep the links as is for now.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Ofenbach
- Ofenbach → Lanzenkirchen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The pageviews indicate that Ofenbach (DJs) is the more likely intended target. A recent RM to move the article to the basename has just closed with no consensus. Recommend the primary redirect to Ofenbach (DJs) instead, with accompanying hatnote at Lanzenkirchen. 162 etc. (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- See pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close. Ofenbach cannot be a primary redirect to Ofenbach (DJs) because that would be unnecessary disambiguation at Ofenbach (DJs). The proper action would be to move Ofenbach (DJs) to Ofenbach, but that's precisely what the RM failed to achieve consensus for. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then make it a disambiguation page. Given the pageviews, the current primary redirect to Lanzenkirchen is indefensible. 162 etc. (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't know what you are talking about here, but the obvious solution would be to retarget to Offenbach, and list both Lanzenkirchen and Ofenbach (DJs) at that disambig page. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Offenbach disambiguation but place the entries among the other Offenbachs instead of at the bottom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there are plans to make the DJs the primary topic again, it can be proposed again in a few months with stronger evidence or strengthened arguments. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. There should be one DAB headed Offenbach or Ofenbach can refer to... or similar. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Offenbach per AngusWOOF and per Andrewa's suggestion at the RM. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Offenbach as per above. It is a common misspelling. --Bejnar (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Philip Thomas Tucker
- Philip Thomas Tucker → The South's Finest (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:XY issues, as Tucker has written many other books. While this is currently the only book of his we have an article on, searching for reviewing on EBSCO indicates that this work Exodus from the Alamo is notable, and his bio of John S. Bowen likely is as well. I think it's too narrow to point this to a single book of Tucker's. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per GiantSnowman and until a better alternative exists. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation and to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep until more works show independent notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per GiantSnowman, Jauerback and AngusW. - Jay Talk 15:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per GiantSnowman, Jauerback, AngusW and Jay. There is no evidence that lack of a target is more likely to promote the creation of new articles. --Bejnar (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Kudanzaka
Propose deletion. This hill does not meet the general notability guideline. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - qualifies for WP:G5, and there is no information at the target nor anywhere else I can see. Google suggests the hill may be notable and/or may have had a notable light feature, but it isn't listed under List of lighthouses in Japan (not sure if that would be the right target anyway) so also delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it qualifies for G5: the redirect was created on 13 September 2011, but the master was not blocked until 18 October 2011. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- may have had a notable light feature. The lighthouse -- or at least a copy of the lighthouse, I don't have my notes handy to tell me which it is -- is still there [20]. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Japanese Wikipedia has an article on Kudanzaka, so there's definitely potential. So either redirect to Chiyoda,_Tokyo#Geography or delete to make it a red-link, to encourage creation of an article. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- We also have an article on The Kudan, a notable residence in Chiyoda and which mentions Kudanzaka in passing but without much information. I don't read Japanese but ja:九段 (via Google Translate) seems to be more about the surrounding neighbourhood, and also includes some description and history of the slope. Maybe someone more proficient can use that to construct an article, or add something to the Chiyoda article? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per squirrel and Calton.- Jay Talk 16:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)- Retarget to Chiyoda, Tokyo#Geography per Bejnar. - Jay Talk 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Chiyoda,_Tokyo#Geography per Calton, which article now mentions the hill. @Jay:, please note. --Bejnar (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Oyata
- Oyata, Tokyo → Tokyo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Propose retarget of first redirect to Ryū-te. Propose deletion of second redirect. This martial artist, who founded Ryū-te, is not a location in Tokyo. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget first, delete second, per nom. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget Oyata, Tokyo to Adachi, Tokyo#Districts and neighborhoods, which mentions this neighbourhood. (FWIW, the neighbourhood has its own article on Japanese Wikipedia: ja:大谷田). No opinion on Oyata at the moment. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget Oyata to Ryū-te and tag as R from avoided double redirect of Seiyu Oyata, since the person appears to be the primary topic for the name. Retarget Oyata, Tokyo per 61.239.39.90. Consider a hatnote from the former. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
- Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development → Government of Maryland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Only mention at target page is The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) oversees housing policy.
There's almost certainly an article that could be written here, so we should delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tag {{R with possibilities}}, refine to Government of Maryland#Other, but otherwise keep it as it is. First priority is to help the readers, second priority to help the editors. This redirect fulfills its purpose to help readers, other considerations are less important. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- How does it help readers? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- It shows them the extent of the relevant information on the site rather than making them wade through this steaming pile of unhelpful search results. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extent of the relevant information rounds down to zero. All that the article says is that the Housing Department oversees housing. I suppose it's helpful if you didn't expect "Maryland Department of..." to refer to a government entity in Maryland, but I'm not sure who'd be searching this term without knowing that. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. We can easily show the reader the exact extent of the relevant information. That is the function of this redirect. Besides, the reader may not know that the department oversees housing policy. It is likely that they infer it oversees housing construction solely. Nevertheless, it is better to show the reader the extent of information rather than deal with unhelpful search results. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The extent of the relevant information rounds down to zero. All that the article says is that the Housing Department oversees housing. I suppose it's helpful if you didn't expect "Maryland Department of..." to refer to a government entity in Maryland, but I'm not sure who'd be searching this term without knowing that. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- It shows them the extent of the relevant information on the site rather than making them wade through this steaming pile of unhelpful search results. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also not convinced that there's an article here, as much as it would make sense. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- How does it help readers? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Mentioned in the article, and a suitable target. The redirect can be converted into an article if required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hyper Potions
- Hyper Potions → Sonic Mania#Development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect target has nothing to do with the article's subject other than writing 2 songs for it, despite the group having done things other than just that Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as used in multiple video games including Final Fantasy and Pokemon. Similar cases can be made for Mega Potion AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
TLC Beatrice
- TLC Beatrice → Reginald Lewis#Business (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Shouldn't this redirect to Beatrice Foods, the company this was split off from, if at all? Paul_012 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I think there's more about TLC Beatrice at Reginald Lewis than there is at the other article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Beatrice Foods. See http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/tlc-beatrice-international-holdings-inc-history/ which shows that the company kept going after Lewis's death in 1993. Add R with possibilities if someone wants to pursue TLC Beatrice's history and current status as a spinoff article as with what was done with Beatrice Foods Canada AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Bong Go-class frigate
- Bong Go-class frigate → Jose Rizal-class frigate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
While "Bong Go" is a subject of controversy regarding a government deal involving these frigates. This is not a plausible search term. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Created as a leftover from page-move vandalism in May 2020. An unlikely search term, though it does have Google hits, hence the "weak" qualification. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Lake Pyhäjärvi
- Lake Pyhäjärvi → Pyhäjärvi (Tampere region) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
"Lake Pyhäjärvi" literally means "Lake Holy Lake". There are quite many lakes named Pyhäjärvi in Finland, the one in the Tampere region is by no means the primary topic. This should redirect to Pyhäjärvi (disambiguation) instead, as Pyhäjärvi itself is a town in Finland. JIP | Talk 00:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
June 4
2021 United States Capitol protests
- 2021 United States Capitol protests → 2021 United States Capitol attack (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- 2021 United States capitol protests → 2021 United States inauguration week protests (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should probably point the same place, let's decide which one it should be. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- "inauguration week protests" makes most sense to me Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- First off, let's note that there's a viable WP:SMALLDETAILS argument here, but I would oppose that, because the Capitol is still a kind of capitol. Furthermore, there's the fact that lots of people don't know the difference between a capital and a capitol. Now, for most people, I think the first thing they think of when they hear these terms is the protest leading up to the storming of the Capitol. However, our article on the storming of the Capitol primarily concerns, well, the storming of the Capitol. We could refine and retarget, respectively, to 2021 United States Capitol attack § March to the Capitol, but that's just two paragraphs, because, despite the enduring image of Trump et al.'s rally at the Ellipse, there really isn't that much to say about the "peaceful protest" part of the day. At the same time, the inauguration protests article is largely about state capitols. Thus, I think the best solution here is a DAB page that covers protests at both the Capitol and state capitols at the lowercase-c version of this title, listing, The 2021 United States Capitol attack, which occurred after a brief protest, The 2020–21 United States election protests, some of which took place at state capitols on the same day as the U.S. Capitol attack, and The 2021 United States inauguration week protests, which occurred at state capitols. And 2021 isn't yet halfway through. There's a good chance there will be more Capitol protests, by some movement or another, before it's over. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be a disambig page. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 23:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Synchronise. I don't have a strong opinion about the best target, but I do strongly believe that both redirects should target the same place. WP:SMALLDIFFS should be avoided unless the differences are very clear and in this case they are not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Faruqui
Munawar
U$C
- U$C → University of Southern California (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The redirect U$c was deleted for a similar reason. This redirect should also be deleted, the same reasons apply. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 18:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @The owner of all: Can you please provide those reasons here or at least link to that discussion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- U$c was deleted five times from '05 to '06 under a definition of vandalism that I'm not sure would stick anymore. This appears to be a moderately popular insulting name for USC. If we look to other redirects of this sort (Micro$oft, $ony), they seem to redirect to Satiric misspelling or specifically its subsection § Currency signs. Not sure what I think we should do with this one yet, but thought I'd just drop this information here for now. As to the U$c redirect, I personally wouldn't accord any precedent to 15-year-old speedies. If this is kept, that redirect would be fair game to recreate (although perhaps not necessary to). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is there some discussion where the consensus on this issue has changed? While "U$c" specifically was deleted in 2006, I can cite an example such as "Thug U" (redirecting to Florida Gators football, or Miami Hurricanes football) that was deleted in 2013 because it was treated as vandalism at that time as well. [21] ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Could also be any of the other USC disambiguations, including multiple colleges as well as United States Congress. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to USC. Could indeed be a sneering reference to any of those. These kind of references that are easily understood by target audiences but not by the reader who chances upon it are imo some of the most useful redirects out there; I use them all the time to quickly identify what sources are talking about. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NOTCENSORED, if it is a satiric mispelling because of the high cost of USC, then it is working properly, as it is apparently moderately popular. If there are other USCs that are not University of Southern California which also use this criticism/satirical spelling, then setindexify, and show which USC values use this alternative spelling. So, either keep as is, or SIA, do not delete. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only place that this should point is Satiric misspelling#Currency signs, mirroring Micro$oft and similar, and per the general principle that non-neutral terms best point to discussion of the term itself, not the subject; see, e.g., Crooked Hillary. However, per WP:RNEUTRAL non-neutral redirects should only exist if a term is well-established, and the lack of mention at the logical target makes me think that this term is not in fact well-established. Delete unless mentioned at that article, with no prejudice against recreation if it is mentioned subsequent to a closure as delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL which states,
Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore 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}}.
sacbee.com, latimes.com, latimes.com UW Dawgs (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- @UW Dawgs: Genuine question: Does this mean that Micro$oft, $ony, etc. should be retargeted to Microsoft, Sony, etc.? If not, what's the difference between their situations and U$C? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are there verifiable sources? UW Dawgs (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. If you follow where those redirects point, you'll see sources for them, plus for several others. Of the terms listed there:
- Bu$h redirects to Public image of George W. Bush. (Not mentioned there; probably should be retargeted.)
- E$$o redirects to Stop Esso campaign
- Ke$ha redirects to Kesha as an {{r from stylization}}
- Congre$$ and Di$ney are redlinks
- Co$, $cientology, Di$neyland, €uro, Micro$oft, M$, M$FT, $ony, and United $tates redirect to Satiric misspelling (some refined to § Currency symbols, some not; I plan to refine all of them once this RFD closes).
- That's why I'm saying, if U$C is a valid {{r non-neutral}}, it should still point to that article/section like all the rest. The only exceptions are E$$o and Ke$ha, which are discussed at their target articles, and Bu$h, which again probably should be retargeted. ("Micro$oft" is, somewhat surprisingly, not mentioned at Criticism of Microsoft.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that's how you interpret those Portuguese, Polish, Russian, and English/UK citations. If those are RS citations and directly supporting, per MOS:SPECIFICLINK (
Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link
) they should be redirects to the well-cited specific organization articles/sections about the specific behavior and perceptions. Ex, Criticism of Microsoft, Sony#Financials, etc. No one is using "$ony" with an intention to access a general topic of Satiric misspelling. They are demonstrating interest in the specific topic (or a subtopic) of Sony. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. If you follow where those redirects point, you'll see sources for them, plus for several others. Of the terms listed there:
- Are there verifiable sources? UW Dawgs (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @UW Dawgs: Genuine question: Does this mean that Micro$oft, $ony, etc. should be retargeted to Microsoft, Sony, etc.? If not, what's the difference between their situations and U$C? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to USC per 92.24.246.11. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Nuclear tektite
- Nuclear tektite → Trinitite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This phrase makes no sense. It appears to be an attempt to create a term for nuclear melt glass. However, tektites are natural by definition; trinitite, meanwhile, is a bad target anyway since it refers to one specific well-documented example of a nuclear melt glass. Google didn't produce any evidence this phrase is actually used: search results. It is worth noting the info in trinitite#Nuclear forensics stating that pre-2010 it was assumed that nuclear melt glasses were all pretty similar, but this is now known to be categorically false; here is how the article looked in Jan 2021 before I expanded it, in 2013 when the redirect was created, and 2010 (the year we realised just how varied nuclear melt glass actually is). 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
La La La La La
- La La La La La → La La La (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Had redirected to Around the World (La La La La La) which is the only article in the dab using the exact phrase "La La La La La". I think that is sufficient to make it the PT. The hatnote there links to the dab to alert the reader if that is not what that are looking for. MB 17:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- A Google search suggests that this term does not distinctively refer to this song. A song might have more than five Las, in which case this would be part of its refrain. It might have fewer, but have them repeated ("La la la / La la la"). Someone typing in "La La La La La" could be looking for any sort of song with lots of "la"s in it. Thus, keep. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The refrain of "La-La-La-Lies" is "La la la la la la lies", but who's counting? Also, the part of a song title in parentheses is intended to distinguish it from other songs of the same name, not necessarily to be itself distinctive; see e.g. La La La (If I Had You)" on the DAB page - and IMO any number of repeated "la"s is not distinctive. Narky Blert (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The disambiguation page deals with 3 or more Las. I do not agree that Around the World (La La La La La) is the primary topic for "La La La La La". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Dominica national under-17 football team
- Dominica national under-17 football team → Dominica national football team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at target. Should delete to encourage article creation Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago national under-15 football team
- Trinidad and Tobago national under-15 football team → Trinidad and Tobago national football team (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at target, and should be deleted to encourage possible article creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Glass parking lot
- Glass parking lot → Trinitite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Glass Parking Lot → Trinitite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Glass crater → Trinitite (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not currently mentioned at the target page and not really suitable to properly cover the term there. Appears to have once been an article. Not sure where this should go or what should happen to it. (There's also Glass Parking Lot but the instructions for listing multiple redirects make precisely zero sense to me.) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also Glass crater. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Trinitite has sections on nuclear forensics, cultural impact, and similar materials. Impact glass redirects to Impactite and might be more suited for glass crater as with Darwin glass AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Impactites are natural, formed by meteorite impacts, not nuclear weapons. Trinitite is one specific form of nuclear melt glass; these phrases seem to refer to nuclear melt glass in general. Trouble is, we don't have a general article, nor do we have even an article for melt glass of any variety. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's Vitrified sand. Would that work? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good possibility, yeah. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've added the two other redirects suggested by the nominator. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect the two "glass parking lot" titles to wikt:glass parking lot, which does a much better job of describing the term and its connotations than trinitite attempts. Retarget "glass crater"
to Darwin glass: explosion crater does not mention anything about glass (as 92.24 noted), while the Darwin crater seems to be the only impact event known to have resulted in glass impactite/ejecta. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)- Actually I like vitrified sand better for Glass crater. It's kind of already a set index listing different ways a glass crater could form, with more info at the various linked articles. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- It also has the benefits that Darwin glass is location-specific, whereas vitrified sand is a more general term. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, lechatelierite might also be a good target. Those two articles are probably good targets for a merge. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- It also has the benefits that Darwin glass is location-specific, whereas vitrified sand is a more general term. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I like vitrified sand better for Glass crater. It's kind of already a set index listing different ways a glass crater could form, with more info at the various linked articles. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Soft redirect Glass parking lot and Glass Parking Lot to Wiktionary's definition per PEIsquirrel. Retarget glass crater to either vitrified sand or lechatelierite per PEIsquirrel & AngusWOOF. I wondered if the parking lot terms maybe were initially inspired specifically by the trinitite formed by the Trinity test, which would support an {{r to section}} and inclusion within cultural impact, but no sign of any reliable source for that. The issue could perhaps be revisited if we ever have an article for nuclear melt glass (or "post-detonation material" in some sources), or a section on nuclear melt glasses in a future melt glass article, or a reliable source firmly linking either term to trinitite specifically. In the meantime, this seems the best solution, with the sole proviso that we need to somehow pick between the two options for retargeting. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Tired all the time syndrome
- Tired all the time syndrome → Chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- TATT → Chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Tired all the time syndrome isn't mentioned in the target. This isn't necessarily always a problem in medical articles where the redirect is a synonym for the target, but per Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Tired all the time syndrome and TATT it probably isn't a synonym so should probably point elsewhere. TATT, on the other hand, should probably be deleted unless tired all the time syndrome can be defined somewhere, as it can have various other meanings, most obviously "tatt" as an abbreviation for "tattoo", so is much more likely to cause confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fatigue TATT acronym is used in regular media for "tired all the time" https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wellbeing/a35274941/how-to-fall-asleep/ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/why-are-you-always-tired https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/tired-all-the-time-it-could-be-because-of-infections-and-inflammatory-diseases/articleshow/64551970.cms https://www.healthline.com/health/daytime-sleepiness/reasons-youre-tired https://www.dnaindia.com/health/report-experts-share-guidelines-to-battle-tatt-syndrome-2148046 Could potentially be its own article but it's a general symptom and not necessarily the chronic fatigue syndrome Add R without mention tag. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to fatigue. TATT is a symptom and not a "syndrome" and certainly not synonymous with CFS/ME. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. "Tired all the time syndrome" isn't mentioned in the target or anywhere else, and if it were there would need to be compliance with WP:MEDRS. I can find no suitable target for TATT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Untitled Okoye series
- Draft:Untitled Okoye series → Draft:Untitled Wakanda series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Prematurely created draft article for a project thought to be one thing (a new series for the character Okoye from Black Panther) but has since been made a redirect to the Wakanda series, which has been confirmed to be what the actress will play the character in. Not many (if any) viewers will be looking for this with the series known to be the latter and given it is a draft. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Draftspace redirects aren't for our readers; they're for our editors. The fact that this page has history means that the redirect serves a purpose for our editors. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as this was only used for an hour before being redirected and then nominated for deletion. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom since it's been confirmed the actor and character will be part of the existing Untitled Wakanda series which there is already a draft for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Deadline Hollywood have now confirmed that the series is separate from the Wakanda series.https://deadline.com/2021/05/danai-gurira-to-reprise-okoye-in-black-panther-wakanda-forever-disney-origin-spinoff-series-1234765921/ Especially pertinent as DH were the ones who broke the initial reporting of the Wakanda series back in February. Mitchy Power (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Deadline's report doesn't specifically confirm that it is for an Okoye series, just that it's for an "origin spinoff series". /Film also notes it is uncertain. Best to just have this redirect deleted and note the info on the Wakanda series draft. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as it helps focus on the single draft for the upcoming TV series that is related to Wakanda, Okoye, Black Panther, and so forth. If there are multiple relevant TV series then the names will be fleshed out. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- AngusWOOF That is what the Untitled Wakanda draft is doing. A user pre-maturely created the Okoye draft when it was unknown if it was independent of the previously announced Wakanda series. Sources have since confirmed they are one in the same, so the Okoye draft name is a mute point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Dōngjīng (Japan)
- Dōngjīng (Japan) → Tokyo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Propose deletion. No one speaks Chinese in Tokyo. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. China and Japan have enough shared history to warrant this redirect, it's unambiguous (dab at Dongjing lists other possible targets but Tokyo is the most prominent by far) and I'm not seeing how it's harmful. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The word "東京" is pronounced Dongjing in Chinese, Tokyo in Japanese, Dokyo in Korean and Dong Kinh in Vietnamese. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and readers will use the Japanese transliteration to search because the city is in Japan, not the other three. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unless they encounter the Chinese word somewhere in a reference about Japan, and try to look it up here to figure out the connection. The fact of common histories makes this much more likely than, say, searching for the Swahili word for Tokyo. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- The word "東京" is pronounced Dongjing in Chinese, Tokyo in Japanese, Dokyo in Korean and Dong Kinh in Vietnamese. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and readers will use the Japanese transliteration to search because the city is in Japan, not the other three. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the 🐿️. I can think of about a billion people who might be searching Wikipedia using a Chinese transliteration of a neighboring country's capital. (Well, at least, those who can get around the Great Firewall's block.) They may well just assume that that's the English transliteration as well; it's not like it's intuitively obvious to me as an English speaker which transliterations that we use are the same in other languages. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Tokei would be the "Chinese" pronunciation (from the Japanese version of Chinese pronunciation found in Japanese, as terms have a native pronunciation and an imported Chinese pronunciation) Since the imported pronunciation predate Mandarin, it shouldn't use the Mandarin term, but the Middle Chinese pronunciation romanization. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the squirrel; it'd be more plausible without the diacritics imo but not a big deal. Re the IP immediately above, the keep arguments are based on the relevance of modern Mandarin and not the onyomi reading. The nom's "No one speaks Chinese in Tokyo" argument is unfortunate given that it's obviously untrue; a better argument would be that Chinese isn't culturally relevant to Tokyo, but when written out it doesn't seem much better. As for Korean Dokyo, there's a plausible cause to hatnote it at Dōkyō, but unlike Dongjing it's just a phonetic transcription of Tokyo anyway. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937, and weren't expelled until 1945. For me, that's a close enough connection to pass WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per 67 and numerous previous precedents about foreign pronunciations of Chinese-character names. The claim that this is useful to a billion Chinese speakers is belied by the fact that the disambiguator is in English; someone who doesn't know how to say Dongjing in English realistically isn't going to know how to say Riben either. Meanwhile 東京 exists, and unlike this redirect it actually gets used [22] - likely because it's written in the actual writing system used by a billion Chinese speakers, and doesn't require any disambiguator. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Nessa Barrett
- Nessa Barrett → Jxdn#As featured artist (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Barrett's been covered in the media for a number of things other than this one collaboration. While she's probably not (yet) notable enough for an article, meaning that WP:REDLINK doesn't quite apply, this redirect is surprising for any reader looking her up in a context other than the song. (The song's title, La Di Die, redirects to Jxdn, which I think is reasonable, although I'm gonna refine the section.) Delete for lack of a logical target. The search results, listing a number of articles that mention her (including the current target), will be far more helpful to our readers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep until someone makes a proper Nessa Barrett page. Unless another page has sufficient information on her, and according to the nominator she doesn’t, keeping her as a redirect to Jxdn where there is coverage is the most appropriate course of action. If as the nominator mentioned, Barrett has had media coverage for other things, I think the most appropriate course of action is to keep the redirect until someone takes that media coverage and turns it into an article. However, the majority of recent headlines appear to also be about Jxdn so I don’t think the redirect is a surprise. She’s not a non-notable entity so deleting the page wouldn’t make sense. And it is completely normal for an artist whose biggest claim to fame is a collaboration with another artist to redirect to the other artist’s discography page if the song itself doesn’t have a page. That’s what is happening here. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or create article - Keep, or create article. The majority of recent headlines involving Barrett appear to also be about Jxdn. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete to encourage article creation, because in the meantime this redirect impedes Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for now as useful for redirecting La Di Die traffic. When La Di Die is big enough on its own then it can redirect there. Same with Barrett's career (multiple charting singles). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Syrian Orthodox Church & Orthodox Syrian Church
- Syrian Orthodox Church → Syriac Orthodox Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Orthodox Syrian Church → Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Jstalins originally pointed Orthodox Syrian Church to Malankara Church in 2018. Today, Br Ibrahim john retargeted it to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Meanwhile, in February Srnec moved the DAB formerly at Syrian Orthodox Church to Syrian Orthodox (disambiguation) and then retargeted the redirect to Syriac Orthodox Church.
In my opinion, these should point to the same place, rather than having target determined by the arbitrary ordering of two adjectives. Both the Malankara and Syriac churches can be accurately described as both Orthodox and Syrian (just in different senses of the word "Syrian"). As neither article is titled "Orthodox Syrian" / "Syrian Orthodox", this doesn't seem like a case of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Given that the DAB page disambiguates among four churches and a denomination comprising several churches, I suggest that we move the DAB page back to Syrian Orthodox Church and retarget Orthodox Syrian Church to the DAB. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Orthodox Syrian Church is a non-existent entity. If it should be redirected to a page, it should be Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church only. It is because it is a cooked up story from this denomination.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Br Ibrahim john: Could you elaborate on
cooked up story
? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)- Yes, certainly. Following the establishment of a self-governing entity in the Malankara Church of India in 1912, two separate denominations arose. One (Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church) remained as an integral part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The other (Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church) started claiming autocephaly (self government). This lead to a series of court cases that lasted for more than a century. During this time, the latter enacted its own constitution, in which it is mentioned that they belong to an entity called the Orthodox Syrian Church. On the other hand the former referred to themselves as a part of the Syrian (Syriac) Orthodox Church. This change was due to the court case. In reality, the Syriac Orthodox Church has never been reffered to as Orthodox Syrian Church ever before or after. In short, the Orthodox Syrian Church is a non-existent entity which has been created for legal reasons only by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The only correct target for these redirects should be the Syriac Orthodox Church which is a very real and current entity. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and others are distinct from the Syriac Orthodox Church by nature of the moniker "Malankara", which clearly distinguishes them here on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Br Ibrahim john: Could you elaborate on
- Retarget Agree with Tamzin and Elizium23.
move the DAB page back to Syrian Orthodox Church and retarget Orthodox Syrian Church to the DAB. J.Stalin S Talk 08:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC) - No change. In no case should "Syrian Orthodox" and "Syriac Orthodox" be treated differently. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the first, retarget the second to Syrian Orthodox (disambiguation). The terms are ambiguous and the dab page is useful for that, but Syriac Orthodox Church is clearly the primary topic and should be found when a user types Syrian instead of Syriac. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Syrian Orthodox Church: There is no mention of this term at the target. The talk page says "The Syrian Orthodox Church has renamed itself the Syriac Orthodox Church.", but given the lack of references in the page, the DAB swap made by Srnec should be contested. Until then I have No opinion on a vote for this.
- Orthodox Syrian Church: There is no mention of this term either at the previous target Malankara Church, or the current one Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Archive 1 of the latter's talk page has lot of discussion around the term, where one assertion is that Orthodox Syrian Church is the same as Syrian Orthodox Church. But it also has the Supreme Court of India judgment that says ".. the Malankara Church .. is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church ...". Assuming that the court meant Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church here, I'll support the change made by Br Ibrahim john and vote to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Aidin
Long standing redirect to the city, a new user wants to redirect to an article on the name Aidin (name). Is the city the primary use? Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note The target Aydın contains a link to Aidin (name) in its hatnote. Polyamorph (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move Aidin (name) over Aidin as WP:PTOPIC (there don't seem to be any other full title matches) and hatnote to Aydın from there. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
*Comment PEIsquirrel's suggestion seems appropriate, happy for this to be closed early to move Aidin (name) over Aidin. Polyamorph (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Aidin is a common alternative spelling of the city's name, much used in the past. All results I see on a Google Books search are for the city, and the personal name appears to be quite obscure. The only justification for departing from the obvious primary topic here would be the need to reduce the hatnote overload at Aydın. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hitesh Makhija
- Hitesh Makhija → Shaadi Mubarak (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target, an internet search suggests that they are a not-yet-notable actor. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. There was a mention in the target until February when User:Anonymous in the world replaced it with another actor. IMDb still lists Hitesh Makhija in the target though. Jay (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Mentioned or not, there's no point in a redirect from an actor's name to the article about one film where he's had a minor role. – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
June 3
Template:Medical condition classification and resources - horizontal test
Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game
- Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game → Sonic the Hedgehog (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Ambiguous redirect. This can refer to any future Sonic the Hedgehog game without a title. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I see no indication that there presently exists a Sonic the Hedgehog video game which does not have a title, and if there were it would not likely be notable yet (owing to its not being titled). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. There's an upcoming Sonic game without a publicly-announced title. (The title was leaked as Sonic Rangers, but Sega hasn't officially announced it yet.) JOEBRO64 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Delete, but for the record, if you dig back farther in the history, it was written as a draft for the upcoming game likely to be titled Sonic Rangers. I redirected it on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON and there being a better developed draft at Draft:Sonic Rangers. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Good find, thanks. I still say delete, but less strongly, since there is no article on this upcoming game yet. If/when the draft is promoted I think that both titles are valid as search terms: I don't have a preference for which title should be used for the article, but the other title should redirect to it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. There's a teaser for a new Sonic game (coming in 2022). The title (Sonic Rangers) has been found from the metadata of a leaked teaser.B1ue64 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, no one doubts that a future Sonic game was announced and will be released someday. The discussion point is really more of a "will a reader really realistically use this search term and be helped by where it leads them"? Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete; the title was already leaked, so there's no need for "Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game". - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per point four of the reasons to keep redirects. The page history and incoming links need to be preserved. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Louis Crane
- Louis Crane → List of loop quantum gravity researchers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Subject isn't mentioned in target article; redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation. (Note a small stub article was BLAR'd some time ago.) Brycehughes (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Barrett–Crane model, a notable model co-published by a Louis Crane (can't say if it's the same Louis Crane, not enough info). We should also take a look at John W. Barrett, a stub that is about two different people with the same name. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I split that Barrett article, although to be honest I'm not entirely sure this one is notable. Brycehughes (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Barrett–Crane model per squirrel. Alternatively restore the pre-redirect stub since we don't know why it was BLAR'd. Jay (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Helene Berner"
- "Helene Berner" → Helene Berner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, less pageviews than usual though. I assume that some old links form 1 minute after creation based on these redirects. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Helene Berner", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Helene Berner", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
- Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as housekeeping. Not intended title or stylization. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Gwenda Hawkes"
- "Gwenda Hawkes" → Gwenda Hawkes (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, pretty consistent stuff. It's a bit odd that these are such consistent numbers, but I'm pretty sure that these are mostly from readers following old links. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Gwenda Hawkes", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)- I heavily doubt that that amount of people are looking for mentions that way. J947's public account 22:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Gwenda Hawkes", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
- Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. High pageviews are evidence that this is clogging search results, not that it's helping people (having been at this title for all of a minute pre-move). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just don't think that those pageviews come from direct-mention searches. See this investigation of sorts I did. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- See also this response to the investigation of sorts I wrote. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- See also this response to the investigation of sorts I wrote. ~~~~
- I just don't think that those pageviews come from direct-mention searches. See this investigation of sorts I did. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Gregory Coleman"
- "Gregory Coleman" → Gregory Coleman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title 16 minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Ghetto Gastro"
- "Ghetto Gastro" → Ghetto Gastro (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title within a minute. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, less pageviews but still more than I'd expect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete consistent with those below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"George Keats"
- "George Keats" → George Keats (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title one minute later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, best to not harm these readers' navigation. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "George Keats", but a redirect like this is exactly what "harm[s] these readers' navigation", as they are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "George Keats", but a redirect like this is exactly what "harm[s] these readers' navigation", as they are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
- Delete consistent with thed others below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"François Recanati"
- "François Recanati" → François Recanati (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title four minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, pageviews. Harmless; helpful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "François Recanati", but in this case a redirect like this is exactly the opposite of "[h]armless" and "helpful", as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The only plausible explanation to me are people searching for exact mentions of "François Recanati", but in this case a redirect like this is exactly the opposite of "[h]armless" and "helpful", as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
- Delete consistent with the others below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale for keeping is found here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Further rationale against keeping is found here. ~~~~
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Francis Chickering"
- "Francis Chickering" → Francis Chickering (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible quotation marks; {{R from move}} but the page was moved from this title three minutes later. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, decent pageviews presumably from quickly-formed old links. This RfD takes more maintenance than the redirect ever would. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Francis Chickering", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine how any external links could have emerged in such a short period of time. The page author was likely the only one who saw the page in this state. What would be plausible are people searching for exact mentions of "Francis Chickering", but a redirect like this only inhibits or obfuscates a search like this, as readers are trying to get to the search page, not the article itself. ~~~~
- Delete. I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 suggests a good reason why this has any views. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory is sound. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not plausible/helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I did a failed (for me) investigation into these redirect's utility, it can be found here. But that being failed doesn't necessitate that the redirect should be deleted, it was just one way of approaching it. "If this is true, this is true" doesn't necessitate "if this is false, this is false". So on with it:If 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory is true, then would it be reasonable for a more popular topic to translate into a more popular direct-mention redirect? Yes – it only makes sense. Well that one's simpler – just do this. Berner, Ghetto Gastro, and Chickering were all created post the start of the time period. Keats' higher pageviews don't translate into higher pageviews for the redirect. And Merle, with the lowest pageviews of the old articles, has the highest pageviews with the quote marks. I hope I'm making some sort of sense. There is no correlation between high, or low, pageviews for the redirect and the article. Given that such correlation would be expected, I think that 1234qwer1234qwer4's theory isn't what's actually happening I never was convinced that 600 people would find direct mentions in that manner in that timeframe. Maybe for a Trump or a Biden, but not for a Frank Merle.So I think that old links is the only reasonable cause of the pageviews. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @J947 On the other hand, while the Merle redirect is linked from User:Tamzin/ampersandbox, User:Uanfala/Redirects with quotation marks, and User:Tamzin/Quotation mark redirects, the Keats redirect isn't linked from any of these. I don't know whether, how, or where "old links" could have been made for a redirect known by virtually nobody, but currently, I think all this redirect is is unhelpful and confusing. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)- So what? The entries are buried in a long list, and it would be very unlikely for the redirect to receive over 15 pageviews as a combined result of those links. As above, it is very unlikely for those pageviews to come from direct-mention searches, so as such old links is the only viable reason for the pageviews. And it is certain that deleting the access for those external links will inconvenience the readers looking for information on why the link is there. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @J947 On the other hand, while the Merle redirect is linked from User:Tamzin/ampersandbox, User:Uanfala/Redirects with quotation marks, and User:Tamzin/Quotation mark redirects, the Keats redirect isn't linked from any of these. I don't know whether, how, or where "old links" could have been made for a redirect known by virtually nobody, but currently, I think all this redirect is is unhelpful and confusing. ~~~~
- Delete per the rationale I outline here. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:What does this refer to?
- Template:What does this refer to? → Template:Clarify (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused, not a particularly useful "shortcut" or alternative name. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - could be an equally valid shortcut for {{which}}, if it were in fact short. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. 0 mainspace transclusions. Too verbose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:What ?
- Template:What ? → Template:Clarify (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused; unlikely shortcut. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, too vague and not used. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete R3. 0 mainspace transclusions. That extra space at the end makes this an implausible typo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Hentai
- Template:WikiProject Hentai → Template:WikiProject Anime and manga (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused - should either be made a wrapper template (which would automatically add the page to the Hentai task force) or deleted. As of now, this doesn't adequately tag pages. Given that it hasn't been used, I don't think converting it to a wrapper would be particularly beneficial over deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Convert to wrapper - although it isn't currently used, it would be a useful categorization of articles. The WikiProject has been marked inactive for six years and was adopted into WikiProject Anime and manga around the same time by the same editor who redirected this, but I don't see the harm in keeping this available. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/1
- Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/1 → Help:Talk page/OBT/1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/2 → Help:Talk page/OBT/2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/3 → Help:Talk page/OBT/3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Template:Wikipedia:Talk page/OBT/4 → Help:Talk page/OBT/4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused and unnecessary - seem to exist as a misunderstanding of how transclusion works. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Papal mandate
- Papal mandate → Papal rescripts (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Papal rescripts are never called "papal mandates" in the article. Veverve (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure. The Catholic Church likes to define things very rigidly, but I don't see any formal definition for "papal mandate" anywhere. From what I can interpret from Googling, a papal mandate is either a directive issued by the Pope, or the Pope's entire authority. In the first sense, a papal rescript is a type of papal mandate, but I think ecclesiastical letter better covers the broader topic; neither mentions "papal mandate" though. The second sense is I think best covered by papal supremacy, but there are other targets that could suffice like papal infallibility or papal primacy. Search results bring up specific examples of individual papal mandates throughout history in articles on saints and other historical figures, so I wouldn't say that search results are better here. I've notified WikiProject Catholicism of this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Protests agianst the Invation of Afganistan
- Protests agianst the Invation of Afganistan → Protests against the war in Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete as highly implausible misspelling, requiring several typos. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Far too many errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Opposition to trade unions
- Opposition to trade unions → Trade union#Impact (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could Union busting be a better target? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – The suggestion definitely has merit, and I'm inclined to support it. But I'd be interested in seeing what reasons, if any, there are against it. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 04:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I like the idea but I feel like there should be an opposition section under Trade union for opposition as opposed to this. Union busting is direct action, but you can also find commentary and indirect action against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UppercutPawnch (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – I think that would be a reasonable redirect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Opposition is not same as busting, per Talk:Opposition to trade unions#Article title is misleading. The alternate name suggested there "Criticism of trade unions" is not appropriate per Talk:Trade union#"Impact" section. Looks like "impact" is what we have for now until that section can be forked into its own article, and we have discussions around its title. Jay (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Jay (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Union busting. I agree with Jay that "opposition" could mean criticism instead of concrete efforts to thwart unions, but the current target doesn't discuss criticisms at all. Right now, someone looking for info on criticisms of unions is unlikely to find anything helpful there (which is a rather significant omission from the article, but that's another discussion), so union busting is perhaps the only valid target right now, and if we ever get a criticism section, we can retarget it back or disambiguate. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep I took a look at some similar redirects:
- Antisyndicalism → Trade union#Impact
- Anti-labor → Trade union#Impact
- Anti-syndicalism → Trade union#Impact
- Anti-unionism → Trade union#Impact
- Criticism of labor unions → Trade union#Criticisms (since-removed section)
- Criticisms of trade unions → Trade union#Criticism (since-removed section)
- Opposition to trade unionism → Trade union#Impact
- (Big caveat: I found these on the "what links here" from Trade union, so if there are similar redirects out there pointing to a different place, I didn't find them.) This says to me that this redirect is pointing to the right place. As has been expressed above, union busting is just one specific aspect of opposition to trade unions. That said, the Impact section is almost entirely positive, so I can see how these could disappoint readers. Ultimately, that's a problem for the article rather than the redirects. The two "criticism" redirects above should probably be repointed to Impact as well, but I'm going to go ahead and retarget Anti-unionism to the disambiguation page Unionism and replace the few existing uses of it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Bakset
Improbable transpositional error. There's no more WP:AFFINITY to this misspelling than to Absket, Bsaket, Basekt, or Baskte. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17 § Baketsball (closed as delete). Created by the same user, although prior to my previous nomination. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, very common typo. Definitely more common than the other terms the nominator mentioned. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like a WP:CHEAP simple transposition error redirect that already exists and does not need to be created, unlike the redlinked suggestions. Also unlike "Baketsball" , this is a simple transposition error of two adjacent letters, not two letters several letters apart -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete- this redirect got five hits only on the day it was created, otherwise it hasn't been used at all. {{R from misspelling}} is meant for plausible misspellings, i.e. words that people are likely to misspell or are actually frequently misspelled, like Portugese and Antartica. An error which on a standard keyboard requires striking a one-off character on entirely the wrong hand out of sequence is not very likely at all, as evidenced by the pageview stats. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)- FWIW, the corresponding long-standing redirect Baksetball gets decent views. J947's public account 23:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have withdrawn my comment per WP:CHEAP. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Cecil bob
- Cecil bob → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Cecil Terwilliger (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
In the Simpsons, Cecil is Bob's brother, but is never known as "Cecil Bob". Creator has been indeffed for vandalism. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - unambiguous and reasonably well-used (WP:RFD#K5). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- The reasonably well-used could be because it was linked from David Hyde Pierce, which I have removed. Jay (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- What could be a better redirect then - Cecil (The Simpsons)? Jay (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice for creating a redirect for Cecil (The Simpsons). Bob Cecil and Cecil Bob points to non-notable names of people. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WeWork
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WeWork → WeWork (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unnecessary after histmerge. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:G8 (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/WeWork does not exist, and redirecting a talk page to an article is nonsense). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Before draftspace existed, drafts were kept in Wikipedia-talk-space because IPs couldn't create projectspace pages. There are currently thousands of pages titled like this. If we're going to delete them (although I can't imagine why we'd want to, when there might be incoming exlinks), that should probably be an RFC. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Tamzin. No benefit to deletion, and even if there were this type of redirect should be discussed as a class first. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I withdraw (though I can't close since others supported deletion) - I was unaware of the history of this type of redirect. I'm considering creating an rcat to explain these now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think an rcat would be a good idea. Someone could do a one-time bot run to mass-add it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of an RFC on all these redirects as a class. As an archaic and obscure way of handling drafts, maintaining it hold no benefits and does have marginal confusion due to the namespace it's in (eg: it's not a talk page nor related to one). -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep until an RFC per Tavix decides on what to do with the thousands of such pages. - Jay Talk 04:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Fukuda (video game)
- Fukuda (video game) → Getsu Fūma Den (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned at the target, nor does it appear to be mentioned on the linked jaWiki article. Deelete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - no clear purpose. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete there might have been a romanization that had Fukuda in the title but the game is not known simply as Fukuda. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
3, 2, 1
- 3, 2, 1 → El Dorado (24kGoldn album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Ambiguous song title redirect; recommend retarget to 321 (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing evidence that this is ambiguous between articles, on the dab page it's the only one formatted like this. Possibly ambiguous with On your mark? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment it's a countdown, such as used for on your mark or takeoff or an explosion, etc. Disambiguate the page -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom to 321 (disambiguation) (lead sentence: 3 2 1, or 3, 2, 1 or 3-2-1 may refer to...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. I distinctly remember having typed this comment about this discussion already. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to disambiguation page per nom. Not enough to make it unique compared to other media titles like 3.2.1. Can create: 3, 2, 1 (song) or 3, 2, 1 (24kGoldn song) as redirects instead. If 3, 2, 1 (song) is created, make a hatnote to the disambiguation page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:WWE Match Types
- Template:WWE Match Types → Professional wrestling (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Bizarre template-to-article WP:XNR, I can't see how this would be ever be useful in this form. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. -- dylx 13:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to have been a navbox for professional wrestling match types evidently made by someone who thought we needed more than one page on that. None of the articles that had been linked from it currently have an equivalent navbox, which suggests that one is not needed. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Template:Latest stable software release/Emacs
- Template:Latest stable software release/Emacs → Template:Latest stable software release/GNU Emacs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Inops with the reason "Technical reason for deletion: "Latest stable software release" templates are automatically transcluded into their corresponding article's infobox. In this case, however, the article for Emacs is not about a specific implementation of software, but rather a family of similar text editor implementations. Hence I've moved the template from this title to the correct one for the piece of software detailed, GNU Emacs. This redirect, however, causes the template to be still transcluded into the Emacs article's infobox." FASTILY 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: this should be a non-controversial deletion, as it's inline with the longstanding note within the Emacs article's infobox:
<!-- Please don't place a version here, as this article is about all editors in the EMACS family. Instead, you may wish to update or add version information to specific software project articles. -->
- Delete for the reasons noted - forces incorrect information into articles. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2
Thought Crimes
- Thought Crimes → Thoughtcrime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Thought crimes → Thoughtcrime (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Thought Crimes was for a few minutes in 2006 the (incorrect) title for the article now at Thoughtcrimes. After that article was moved, the redirect was swiftly retargeted to Thoughtcrime. Since then, however, the movie Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop has come out. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I propose we retarget to Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop, on the premise that someone using the capital C is more likely to be looking for the movie. The movie article can have a hatnote to Thoughtcrime and Thoughtcrimes.
Thought crimes didn't exist till a few minutes ago, but I created it as a companion to this one, as clearly it should exist. Again per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I've targeted it to Thoughtcrime, on the premise that someone using the lowercase c is more likely to be looking for the general concept, and thus propose that we keep this target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget both to the newer film with a hatnote listing both Orwell's thoughtcrime and the older Thoughtcrimes film. Actually I think there's a good case to be made for merging thoughtcrime into Thought Police: both articles are about basically the same topic, and each one is missing some coverage that's done well in the other. I tend to disagree with WP:SMALLDETAILS when the small detail is a capital letter: it's much more likely in the google era that people type search terms in all lowercase, and when a capital letter is the only distinct small detail we should treat the terms as basically the same. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Lauren Bloomstein
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Lauren Bloomstein
Gilly (A Song of Ice and Fire)
Superman and (TV Series)
- Superman and (TV Series) → Supergirl (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Superman and Lois (TV series) → Superman & Lois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Superman & Lois (TV Series) → Superman & Lois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Superman & Lois (TV series) → Superman & Lois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Superman and Lois → Superman & Lois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series) → Supergirl (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Draft:Superman and Lois → Supergirl (TV series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Draft:Superman & Lois → Superman & Lois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect leads to Supergirl (TV series) but was meant for Superman & Lois, but regardless, a better redirect is found at Superman and Lois. Gonnym (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Retargetto Superman & Lois. It's hard to tell what happened here: I tried to trace the title through multiple moves, moves of a second draft that eventually became the article, a move-without-redirect followed by two unusual bot redirects, and a round-robin move that overwrote one of the drafts after they were promoted. Along with this redirect there are redirects from "Superman and Lois (TV series)" in article and draft space, with all of the iterations you can imagine ("and" vs "&", "series" vs "Series", plus this one that left out Lois, and one where someone started a third draft after the article was already promoted). I'll just say this: it's a complete mess. Curiously this title is very actively used, with 200+ hits in the last 30 days and as many as 28 in a single day; the current target is the result of a bad bot edit but clearly it was meant to point to the Superman and Lois series, not the Supergirl series. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- I've added in the other redirects for illustrative purposes (not including Superman and Lois (TV Series) which was moved-without-redirect out of process) but I have not (yet) tagged them. The draft redirects probably should be deleted, the others that already target Superman & Lois are fine. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Now all tagged for completeness. Some of the old Supergirl redirects are still tagged {{R to section}} which is not correct for any of them. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've added in the other redirects for illustrative purposes (not including Superman and Lois (TV Series) which was moved-without-redirect out of process) but I have not (yet) tagged them. The draft redirects probably should be deleted, the others that already target Superman & Lois are fine. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Superman and (TV Series) as an implausible typo/misnomer (basically, as per WP:R3). I would also agree with deleting Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series) (basically as per WP:R2 and WP:R3). Retarget Draft:Superman and Lois to Superman & Lois, and keep the others as is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- R3 does not apply: none of these redirects are recently created. They're all about a year old, except for Superman and Lois which (along with Superman & Lois) were originally redirects to the article now at Superman and Lois Lane, both created in 2012. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- So? This isn't a formal "CSD" discussion – but the basis for my vote on that is correct: that is an completely implausible typo/misnomer (both a missing word and incorrect capitalization on the disambiguation) and that redirect should be deleted on that basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support the various actions per IJBall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Revised !vote, per the discussion above:
- Delete all of the Draft: redirects, per WP:XNR and because I understand this to be standard practice when promoting articles;
- Retarget Superman and Lois to Superman and Lois Lane per WP:SMALLDETAILS: the article on the characters has roughly 3.5x more pageviews than the article on the TV show based on those characters (in the past 90 days: 50,291 versus 14,582) suggesting it's the primary topic for that title;
- Retarget all of the (TV series) and (TV Series) redirects to Superman and Lois, because the pageviews for the "Superman and" errored title suggest external linking (WP:RFD#K5) and for reasons which should be obvious for the rest.
- -- Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not necessary standard practice to delete redirects when moving from Draft to Mainspace – those redirects are kept as often as not.But I have no objection to your Superman and Lois redirect suggestion – that seems right, and the article has a hatnote to the TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's good to know, thanks. In this instance I still favour deletion: the drafts weren't necessarily created under titles referring to the articles where they eventually ended up, so besides not really being all that useful, they're also confusing. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @PEIsquirrel and IJBall:
because I understand this to be standard practice when promoting articles
that is almost exactly backwards, in accordance with WP:RDRAFT such redirects are invariable retained. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @PEIsquirrel and IJBall:
- That's good to know, thanks. In this instance I still favour deletion: the drafts weren't necessarily created under titles referring to the articles where they eventually ended up, so besides not really being all that useful, they're also confusing. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, it's not necessary standard practice to delete redirects when moving from Draft to Mainspace – those redirects are kept as often as not.But I have no objection to your Superman and Lois redirect suggestion – that seems right, and the article has a hatnote to the TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here is my input:
- Delete Superman and (TV Series) as incorrect / improbable title and housekeeping
- Delete Superman & Lois (TV Series) as housekeeping capitalization of Series
- Delete Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series) as housekeeping capitalization of Series
- Boldly fix redirects to Supergirl to point to Superman & Lois
- The main article seems to carry the bulk of the edits in 2019 and 2020. If at that time the article was still in draft, then consider retaining the Draft:Superman and Lois and Draft:Superman & Lois AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Wajid Khan (Khan music duo)
Babe (video game)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Babe (video game)
Wikipedia:ROSE
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Wikipedia:ROSE
Wikipedia:8BALL
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Wikipedia:8BALL
June 1
Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off drafts
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off drafts
Trcuk
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Trcuk
El Buen Viajero
Siege of Thionville (1870)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Siege of Thionville (1870)
Jim Meyer (businessman)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Jim Meyer (businessman)
Operation Flying Eagle
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Operation Flying Eagle
3.11
- 3.11 → 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
3.11 is just a number, not an earthquake. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Umm... citation needed? I've heard the incident (not just the earthquake but the tsunami that caused virtually all the human casualties and property damage, including the nuclear event) called "three eleven" (spelled either "3.11" or "3/11") or "san ten ichi-ichi" (spelled "3.11") hundreds of times. Here it is on the Japanese national broadcaster's website. Here it is on a Japanese government website. Here it is on the website of a widely-circulated English-language newspaper in Japan. If you want to make an argument that outside of a Japanese context it could refer to other things, then create a disambig page or propose a retarget. While English-speakers may not, on average, "care" as much about 3.11 as they do about 9.11, pending the existence of a better redirect target there is no need to delete the current redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment My Google searches for "3.11" are dominated by software version numbers (Windows 3.11 is the most notable), then comes a couple of references bible verses, more software version numbers, then on page 3 I get a couple of results related to Japan amid yet more software version numbers and paragraph 3.11 in various documents and a non-notable musical project related to a DJ/producer from Denmark. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I'd be cool with the creation of a disambig page if enough English-language reliable sources refer to Windows 3.11 etc. as simply "3.11", but from where I geolocate to (or perhaps my Google language settings or some such) I'm definitely not seeing the same results -- nothing but tsunami... On an aside, your speedy close below cut me off before getting to post this. Do you think there's anything to it? Why would the eight-year-old redirect page suddenly get "reviewed" by an accounted user immediately before or immediately after it gets
TRFDed by an anon user? (Sorry, I don't know how to check the exact time; my notifications say "5h" right now as they did about 30 minutes ago) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- I've replied on your talk page regarding the redirect below. Based on my google searches alone there is no call for any content at this title as there is no strong connection with any topic at all. If that's different in Japan then that would be a reason to keep the redirect, but from someone outside Japan this is not at all obvious as the event is just not referred to as "3.11" at all. Searching for "3/11" finds an equal mix of the earthquake/tsunami and bible verses on page 1, before devolving into all sorts of incidental mentions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not clear what you mean by "google searches", but a blank Google search for me brings up nothing but Japanese-language pages on the incident that everyone in Japan calls 3.11. Google News and Google Books searches are a bit more varied and a bit less region/language-specific (news results given below), but I think it's pretty irrelevant whether some or even most sources in English that feature the "3.11" string of characters are referring to an arbitrary number that has no particular relevance to any topic with a Wikipedia article: if even one or two sources use it with the specific meaning of "the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" that should be enough, and I've already linked 10. Hear are two more from a Google Books search, one from a British publisher and one from an American publisher, both simply using "3.11" as an unambiguous reference to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in their titles. I am not sure if these two are among the top five GBooks hits for
"3.11" "is"
("is" being included to weed out non-English results) for people not searching from inside Japan, but anyone with access to Google should be able to search for"3.11" "earthquake"
,"3.11" "tsunami"
,"3.11" "TEPCO"
,"3.11" "Fukushima"
, or"3.11" "Japan"
and see plenty of similar results. Some of these have titles that include "the 3.11 Earthquake/Crisis/Etc." in their titles, but those appear to be in the minority, and even if they are not, the presence of two books (actually three) that simply refer to "3.11" in their titles should be enough to justify keeping the redirect, no? It may indeed be the case that this name has only become "intuitive" for Japanese natives and non-Japanese who have been living in Japan, but several such people have apparently been publishing English-language books that use the name in their titles with an apparent expectation either that their readers will already be familiar with the name or intuit its meaning from other elements on the book covers. - Sorry if I seem agitated. I'm not, but I am a little confused: as you noted on my talk page, I'm unfamiliar enough with RFD that I repeatedly misnamed it as "TFD" without even noticing. At AFD (a venue with which I have a little more experience), three full-length books (two from academic publishers) devoted to a topic would more than verify that topic's notability, so I've been assuming that if the same books' titles refer to said topic by a particular name, that name would be assumed to be a good redirect.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should add that, while I'm reluctant to add the text
The event is often referred to simply as 3/11 or 3.11 (pronounced san-ten-ichi-ichi in Japanese).
to the linked article proper given that I am now very confused as to whether this is something that is completely unknown to practically everyone outside Japan (even those who remember reading about it and seeing it on the news back in 2011) or if anyone with a casual interest in the topic would be aware of this (and only those who [a] don't live in Japan and [b] are generally unfamiliar with the topic), as this would affect how such an addition is written (i.e., whether aWithin Japan, ...
is needed}}), "3.11" does already appear unambiguously three times in the article anyway, twice in the titles of English-language "Further reading" entries and once in the title of a Japanese-language source cited inline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not clear what you mean by "google searches", but a blank Google search for me brings up nothing but Japanese-language pages on the incident that everyone in Japan calls 3.11. Google News and Google Books searches are a bit more varied and a bit less region/language-specific (news results given below), but I think it's pretty irrelevant whether some or even most sources in English that feature the "3.11" string of characters are referring to an arbitrary number that has no particular relevance to any topic with a Wikipedia article: if even one or two sources use it with the specific meaning of "the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" that should be enough, and I've already linked 10. Hear are two more from a Google Books search, one from a British publisher and one from an American publisher, both simply using "3.11" as an unambiguous reference to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in their titles. I am not sure if these two are among the top five GBooks hits for
- I've replied on your talk page regarding the redirect below. Based on my google searches alone there is no call for any content at this title as there is no strong connection with any topic at all. If that's different in Japan then that would be a reason to keep the redirect, but from someone outside Japan this is not at all obvious as the event is just not referred to as "3.11" at all. Searching for "3/11" finds an equal mix of the earthquake/tsunami and bible verses on page 1, before devolving into all sorts of incidental mentions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I'd be cool with the creation of a disambig page if enough English-language reliable sources refer to Windows 3.11 etc. as simply "3.11", but from where I geolocate to (or perhaps my Google language settings or some such) I'm definitely not seeing the same results -- nothing but tsunami... On an aside, your speedy close below cut me off before getting to post this. Do you think there's anything to it? Why would the eight-year-old redirect page suddenly get "reviewed" by an accounted user immediately before or immediately after it gets
- Ah, Google News has a slightly higher proportion of software, but also a lot of mortgage rate percentages, amounts in millions of USD (apparently 20 million yuan as of 14 hours ago was 3.11 million USD), COVID-19 global death totals as of four weeks ago, but still at least seven (English-language) results out of the first 30 relating to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] I'm definitely biased here as, among the non-English results I can see, every single one of the Japanese ones relates to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami while the Korean, Chinese and Malay ones uniformly refer to other things, but at the same time all of those other things seem to be "just numbers" rather than referring to a specific encyclopedic topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- When I search "3.11" on Google, I see pages and pages full of software version numbers. When I search the same thing on Google News, I only find mortgage rates and coronavirus cases in India. Nothing else. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, Google News has a slightly higher proportion of software, but also a lot of mortgage rate percentages, amounts in millions of USD (apparently 20 million yuan as of 14 hours ago was 3.11 million USD), COVID-19 global death totals as of four weeks ago, but still at least seven (English-language) results out of the first 30 relating to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] I'm definitely biased here as, among the non-English results I can see, every single one of the Japanese ones relates to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami while the Korean, Chinese and Malay ones uniformly refer to other things, but at the same time all of those other things seem to be "just numbers" rather than referring to a specific encyclopedic topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Disambiguate with March 11 , November 3, 3 AD November, 11 AD March, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and this; list alternate spellings as "3-11", "3/11" to cover all such variations. --- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is "3.11" a likely search term for any of them? Bear in mind that the redirect to the 3.11 disaster has been stable for eight years, and in the 12 years before that no one thought to redirect it to March 11 or November 3 or create a disambiguation page for them, and this does not seem to be standard procedure for any of the 13,000+ other such pages. I just looked around for another random example and typed 6.4 into the search box: should that be RFDed as well? 7.5 does not redirect to either July 5 or May 7. Your IP geolocates to Quebec, and while I have family in (and coworkers from) Canada I must admit ignorance of that nation's history, and I cannot think of any such incident from my own country's history, but comparable examples of incidents in both modern Chinese and American history, where "MM.DD" is apparently used as a common abbreviated reference to "that incident": can you give an example of an MM.DD title where the based title is a disambiguation page between a bunch of random day and month articles and one is on a very well-known incident (widely recognized as a key date in the modern history of the country where it occurred) that is commonly referred to simply as MM.DD? If such disambiguation were needed, wouldn't we already have it for the 13,000+ other such titles, or at least the 366 days of a leap year in American order? Did 9.11 and 6.4 experience these problems? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, WfW 3.11 is likely to be known that way. And as for pure numbers, all dates are written variously and known that way, and all pure number pages should be disambiguation pages (or redirects to such) first in all cases, IMO; including all famous numbers (911 included). In Quebec a variety of date formats are found, and some people use full stops instead of dasshes or slashes. There are government TV adverts about confusion between MM[/-.]DD and DD[/-.]MM date formats. (ie. U.S. style vs European style). -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is "3.11" a likely search term for any of them? Bear in mind that the redirect to the 3.11 disaster has been stable for eight years, and in the 12 years before that no one thought to redirect it to March 11 or November 3 or create a disambiguation page for them, and this does not seem to be standard procedure for any of the 13,000+ other such pages. I just looked around for another random example and typed 6.4 into the search box: should that be RFDed as well? 7.5 does not redirect to either July 5 or May 7. Your IP geolocates to Quebec, and while I have family in (and coworkers from) Canada I must admit ignorance of that nation's history, and I cannot think of any such incident from my own country's history, but comparable examples of incidents in both modern Chinese and American history, where "MM.DD" is apparently used as a common abbreviated reference to "that incident": can you give an example of an MM.DD title where the based title is a disambiguation page between a bunch of random day and month articles and one is on a very well-known incident (widely recognized as a key date in the modern history of the country where it occurred) that is commonly referred to simply as MM.DD? If such disambiguation were needed, wouldn't we already have it for the 13,000+ other such titles, or at least the 366 days of a leap year in American order? Did 9.11 and 6.4 experience these problems? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not a vote on the question, but just wanted to note that disambiguation could probably be accomplished by retargeting to the existing 3/11, if we choose to go that route. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but no clear outcome yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to 3/11 and add possible uses there, per BDD. No need to create a separate dab for this, users are likely to confuse the two anyway so they may as well be in the same place. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Question for both BDD and Ivanvector: Is disambiguation really necessary, in your opinions? The other meanings of 3.11 that have been brought up are software versions, which to the best of my knowledge are never called 3/11, and the other meanings listed at 3/11 do not seem to be widely referred to as "3.11" (the Madrid train bombings would likely, if called by such a name, be referred to as 11/3 or 11.3 -- the lead of our article says people in Spain often call them 11M, though -- while 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines are referred to as "3/11" multiple times in that article and never as "3.11"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to communicate this above, but to be more explicit: I have not rendered an opinion on this discussion and am not currently following it. As a potential closer, I saw disambiguation suggested, and thought if disambiguation is chosen, it could better be accomplished by a retarget to an existing disambiguation page. But again, not an opinion on whether we should disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I basically agree with BDD's rationale, except that I explicitly endorse disambiguation. Generally there seem to be more topics that could be referred to with either a period/decimal or a slash than there are topics which would only reasonably be referred to as one or the other, so to me it seems to be less maintenance/monitoring required to put them all on one dab page rather than two. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to communicate this above, but to be more explicit: I have not rendered an opinion on this discussion and am not currently following it. As a potential closer, I saw disambiguation suggested, and thought if disambiguation is chosen, it could better be accomplished by a retarget to an existing disambiguation page. But again, not an opinion on whether we should disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Question for both BDD and Ivanvector: Is disambiguation really necessary, in your opinions? The other meanings of 3.11 that have been brought up are software versions, which to the best of my knowledge are never called 3/11, and the other meanings listed at 3/11 do not seem to be widely referred to as "3.11" (the Madrid train bombings would likely, if called by such a name, be referred to as 11/3 or 11.3 -- the lead of our article says people in Spain often call them 11M, though -- while 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines are referred to as "3/11" multiple times in that article and never as "3.11"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Hijiri88. We can add a hatnote at the top like we do with September 11 attacks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
National TV
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#National TV
May 31
User:Ivanvector/Ogedengbe of Ilesa
First Second Gentleman
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#First Second Gentleman
Little Portugal, Los Angeles
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Little Portugal, Los Angeles
The Editor (Doctor Who)
Lab leak
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Lab leak
Aceh 2005 earthquake
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Aceh 2005 earthquake
Terra Research
Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM
Minecraft SMP YouTubers
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Minecraft SMP YouTubers
Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong
- Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong → Bagoong (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible title. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's a fair amount of hard-to-find history about this redirect (see contribs of creator), so I'm tempted to keep this redirect to preserve some of that history. The redirect isn't harming anyone after all. Also a surprising amount of views. J947's public account 22:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per pageviews - it's obviously linked from somewhere. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it started as a WP:CFORK and was immediately redirected, and edit warred, and finally redirected, in a short time period right after creation. Thus it has almost always been a redirect with a bad name, that seems like a fake WP:SUBPAGE in mainspace. There's no base article Filipino Traditional Food -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that the Filipino Traditional Food: prefix was an attempt at a namespace with Filipino traditional foods. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Implausible title, and my guess is that the page views are from people finding it via the search bar and wondering: "What the hell?", then clicking on it to find out. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP4. Has a surprising number of page views, so deleting would probably break something that readers use. — Wug·a·po·des 19:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per common sense. This is not plausible as a search term, especially due to the colon error. There are several explanations for page views that would disappear with the redirect, chief among them being a prominent suggestion when typing "Filipino" in the search bar. Deleting this redirect would enable search results where Bagoong would be a prominent entry, so I am unconvinced that deletion would be a hindrance to anybody trying to find Bagoong. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
being a prominent suggestion when typing "Filipino" in the search bar
: I don't see such a search suggestion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)- That can easily be solved with a disambiguated redirect with proper formatting, a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} of the form: Bagoong (Filipino traditional food) / Bagoong (Philippine traditional food); if we actually need search redirects. The current title is for breaking Wikipedia naming by creating a private (pseudo)namespace, or from the era before Wikipedia had categories, when subpages and things that looked like subpages were used to group articles. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- The only way the "pseudo-namespace" part will break anything is if we one day install an extension that plans to use the "Filipino Traditional Food" namespace. The odds of that happening are indistinguishable from 0, so we can safely assume this will break nothing. The point about not showing up in search suggestions (which I also don't see by the way) is that page views are unlikely to be due to search suggestions like Tavix suggests. Combined with the lack of incoming links detailed below, the most reasonable conclusion is that there is some actively read external link that will break if we delete this, which WP:RFD#KEEP4 explicitly says to avoid. — Wug·a·po·des 07:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- During an RfD is a bad time to test the search drop-down because adding the RfD tag reclassifies it from a redirect to an article (because the tag breaks the redirect function). This affects the algorithm used to determine what gets suggested. I can confirm that currently all it takes is "Filipino T" to show up, which is still pretty prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- That can easily be solved with a disambiguated redirect with proper formatting, a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} of the form: Bagoong (Filipino traditional food) / Bagoong (Philippine traditional food); if we actually need search redirects. The current title is for breaking Wikipedia naming by creating a private (pseudo)namespace, or from the era before Wikipedia had categories, when subpages and things that looked like subpages were used to group articles. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment These are the pages that Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong is linked from: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (because of this discussion), Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and its article alerts subpage (which has this discussion), Talk:Bagoong (the link there is in the season "Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong" listed at Redirects for discussion), User talk:Chicdat/log (I keep a log of all RfDs that I nominated), and this page. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- This does not include incoming links from external sites. Page view metrics show that it is being viewed, and as you point out, it's unlikely those views are coming from internal links. That means the redirect is probably linked from an external site and is being used currently. Redirects are cheap so I don't see what value we get from breaking links. — Wug·a·po·des 07:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I am surprised at the number of views, but we can't discount the possibility that this is showing up in the search box and attracting some "what the..." clicks. Besides, I don't really see many views here. The recent spike corresponds with this RfD. As a second choice, move to something like Bagoong (food) or Bagoong (condiment) without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Moue
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Moue