stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión

Redirecciones para discusión ( RfD ) es el lugar donde se discuten las redirecciones potencialmente problemáticas . Los elementos suelen permanecer en la lista durante una semana aproximadamente, después de lo cual se eliminan, se conservan o se redirigen.

No cambie unilateralmente el nombre ni el destino de una redirección mientras se está discutiendo. Esto agrega complicaciones innecesarias a la discusión para los participantes y los que cierran el tema.

Antes de incluir una redirección para su discusión

Tenga en cuenta estas políticas generales, que se aplican aquí y en otros lugares:

Los principios rectores de la RfD

  • Guía WP:R

¿Cuándo debemos eliminar una redirección?


  • WP:RFD#DAÑINO
  • ¿Qué es RFD?

Las principales razones por las que la eliminación de redirecciones es perjudicial son:

  • una redirección puede contener un historial de edición no trivial;
  • Si una redirección es razonablemente antigua (o es el resultado de mover una página que ha estado allí durante bastante tiempo), entonces es posible que su eliminación rompa los enlaces entrantes (tales enlaces que provienen de revisiones anteriores de páginas de Wikipedia, de resúmenes de ediciones, de otros proyectos de Wikimedia o de otros lugares de Internet , no aparecen en "Lo que enlaza aquí" ).

Por lo tanto, considere eliminar únicamente las redirecciones dañinas o las recientes.

Razones para eliminar

  • WP:RFD#BORRAR

Es posible que desee eliminar una redirección si se cumple una o más de las siguientes condiciones ( pero tenga en cuenta también las excepciones que se enumeran debajo de esta lista ):

  1. La página de redireccionamiento dificulta excesivamente a los usuarios la búsqueda de artículos con nombres similares a través del motor de búsqueda. Por ejemplo, si el usuario busca "Artículos nuevos" y es redirigido a una página de desambiguación para "Artículos", tardará mucho más tiempo en llegar a los artículos recién añadidos en Wikipedia.
  2. La redirección podría causar confusión. Por ejemplo, si "Adam B. Smith" fue redirigido a "Andrew B. Smith", porque Andrew fue llamado Adam por accidente en una fuente, esto podría causar confusión con el artículo sobre Adam Smith , por lo que la redirección debería eliminarse.
  3. La redirección es ofensiva o abusiva, como por ejemplo redirigir "Joe Bloggs es un perdedor" a "Joe Bloggs" (a menos que "Joe Bloggs es un perdedor" se mencione legítimamente en el artículo), o "Joe Bloggs" a "Perdedor". ( Pueden aplicarse los criterios de eliminación rápida G10 y G3 ). Véase también § Neutralidad de las redirecciones.
  4. La redirección constituye autopromoción o spam. ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G11 ).
  5. La redirección no tiene sentido, por ejemplo, redirigir "Apple" a "Orange". ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G1 ).
  6. Se trata de una redirección entre espacios de nombres que sale del espacio de artículos, como una que apunta al espacio de nombres User o Wikipedia. La principal excepción a esta regla son las redirecciones de acceso directo a pseudoespacios de nombres , que técnicamente están en el espacio de artículos principal. Algunas redirecciones entre espacios de nombres de larga data también se mantienen debido a su larga historia y su posible utilidad. Las redirecciones " MOS: ", por ejemplo, fueron una excepción a esta regla hasta que se convirtieron en su propio espacio de nombres en 2024. (Tenga en cuenta también la existencia de alias de espacios de nombres como WP: . El criterio de eliminación rápida R2 puede aplicarse si el espacio de nombres de destino es algo distinto de Category: , Template: , Wikipedia: , Help: o Portal: ).
  7. Si la redirección está rota, es decir, redirige a un artículo que no existe, se puede eliminar inmediatamente según el criterio de eliminación rápida G8 . Debe comprobar que no haya otro lugar al que se pueda redirigir adecuadamente en primer lugar y que no se haya dañado por vandalismo.
  8. Si la redirección es un sinónimo nuevo o muy poco conocido de un nombre de artículo que no se menciona en el destino, es poco probable que sea útil. En particular, las redirecciones en un idioma distinto del inglés a una página cuyo tema no esté relacionado con ese idioma (o una cultura que hable ese idioma) generalmente no deben crearse. (Los errores tipográficos o los nombres incorrectos inverosímiles son candidatos para el criterio de eliminación rápida R3 , si se crearon recientemente).
  9. Si el artículo de destino debe ser movido al título de redirección, pero la redirección ha sido editada antes y tiene su propio historial, entonces el título debe ser liberado para dejar lugar para el movimiento. Si el movimiento no es controversial, etiquete la redirección para eliminación rápida de G6 , o alternativamente (con el suppressredirectderecho del usuario; disponible para los que mueven páginas y los administradores), realice un movimiento por turnos . Si no, lleve el artículo a Movimientos solicitados .
    • WP:RETORNADO
    Si la redirección pudiera ampliarse de manera plausible a un artículo, y el artículo de destino prácticamente no contiene información sobre el tema.

Razones para no eliminar

  • WP:RFD#MANTENER

Sin embargo, evite eliminar dichas redirecciones si:

  1. Tienen un historial de páginas potencialmente útil, o un historial de edición que se debe mantener para cumplir con los requisitos de licencia para una fusión (ver Wikipedia:Fusionar y eliminar ). Por otro lado, si la redirección se creó al cambiar el nombre de una página con ese nombre, y el historial de la página solo menciona el cambio de nombre, y por una de las razones anteriores desea eliminar la página, copie el historial de la página a la página de Discusión del artículo al que redirige. El acto de cambiar el nombre es un historial de páginas útil, y más aún si ha habido una discusión sobre el nombre de la página.
  2. Estos enlaces facilitarían la creación de enlaces accidentales y harían menos probable la creación de artículos duplicados , ya sea redirigiendo un plural a un singular, redirigiendo un error ortográfico frecuente a uno correcto, redirigiendo un nombre erróneo a un término correcto, redirigiendo a un sinónimo, etc. En otras palabras, los redireccionamientos sin enlaces entrantes no son candidatos para la eliminación por esos motivos porque son beneficiosos para el usuario que navega. Se requerirá una vigilancia adicional por parte de los editores para minimizar la aparición de esos errores ortográficos frecuentes en el texto del artículo porque los errores ortográficos enlazados no aparecerán como enlaces rotos; considere etiquetar el redireccionamiento con la plantilla {{ R from misspelling }} para ayudar a los editores a monitorear estos errores ortográficos.
  3. Facilitan las búsquedas de determinados términos. Por ejemplo, los usuarios que vean que se menciona " Keystone State " en algún lugar pero no sepan a qué se refiere, podrán averiguarlo en el artículo sobre Pensilvania (objetivo).
  4. Eliminar redirecciones conlleva el riesgo de romper enlaces entrantes o internos. Por ejemplo, las redirecciones resultantes de cambios de página normalmente no deberían eliminarse sin una buena razón. Los enlaces que han existido durante un tiempo significativo, incluidos los enlaces CamelCase (por ejemplo, WolVes ) y los enlaces de subpáginas antiguas , deberían dejarse intactos en caso de que existan enlaces en páginas externas que apunten a ellos. Véase también Wikipedia:Rotura de enlaces § Rotura de enlaces en sitios que no son de Wikimedia .
  5. Alguien los encuentra útiles. Sugerencia: si alguien dice que le resulta útil una redirección, probablemente sea así. Es posible que a usted no le resulte útil, no porque la otra persona esté mintiendo, sino porque navega por Wikipedia de diferentes maneras. La evidencia del uso se puede medir utilizando la herramienta Wikishark o PageViews en la redirección para ver la cantidad de visitas que recibe.
  6. La redirección se realiza a una forma de palabra estrechamente relacionada, como una forma plural a una forma singular .

Neutralidad de las redirecciones

  • WP:RNEUTRAL

Así como los títulos de artículos que utilizan un lenguaje no neutral están permitidos en algunas circunstancias , también lo están dichas redirecciones. Debido a que las redirecciones son menos visibles para los lectores, se permite más libertad en sus nombres, por lo tanto, la falta percibida de neutralidad en los nombres de las redirecciones no es una razón suficiente para su eliminación. En la mayoría de los casos, las redirecciones no neutrales pero verificables deben apuntar a artículos con títulos neutrales sobre el tema del término. Las redirecciones no neutrales pueden estar etiquetadas con .{{R from non-neutral name}}

Las redirecciones no neutrales se crean comúnmente por tres razones:

  1. Los artículos que se crean utilizando títulos no neutrales se mueven rutinariamente a un nuevo título neutral, lo que deja atrás el antiguo título no neutral como una redirección funcional (por ejemplo, ClimategateControversia por correo electrónico de la Unidad de Investigación Climática ).
  2. Los artículos creados como bifurcaciones de POV pueden eliminarse y reemplazarse por una redirección que apunte al artículo del cual se originó la bifurcación (por ejemplo, rumor musulmán de Barack Obama → eliminado y ahora redirigido a teorías conspirativas sobre la religión de Barack Obama ).
  3. El tema de los artículos puede estar representado por algunas fuentes externas a Wikipedia en términos no neutrales. Dichos términos generalmente se evitan en los títulos de los artículos de Wikipedia, de acuerdo con las pautas de palabras que se deben evitar y la política general de punto de vista neutral . Por ejemplo, la expresión no neutral " Attorneygate " se utiliza para redirigir al artículo de título neutral Dismissal of US attorneys controversial . El artículo en cuestión nunca ha utilizado ese título, pero la redirección se creó para proporcionar un medio alternativo para llegar a él porque varios informes de prensa utilizan el término.

Las excepciones a esta regla serían las redirecciones que no son términos establecidos y que es poco probable que sean útiles, y por lo tanto pueden ser nominadas para su eliminación, tal vez bajo la razón de eliminación n.° 3. Sin embargo, si una redirección representa un término establecido que se utiliza en múltiples fuentes confiables , se debe mantener incluso si no es neutral, ya que facilitará las búsquedas de dichos términos. Tenga en cuenta que RfD no es el lugar para resolver la mayoría de las disputas editoriales.

Notas de cierre

Detalles en Instrucciones del administrador para RfD

Las nominaciones deben permanecer abiertas, según la política , aproximadamente una semana antes de que se cierren, a menos que cumplan con los criterios generales para la eliminación rápida , los criterios para la eliminación rápida de una redirección o no sean solicitudes de discusión de redirección válidas (por ejemplo, en realidad son solicitudes de movimiento ).

Cómo incluir una redirección para su discusión

  • WP:RFDCOMO

Lista actual

  • WP:RFD#ACTUAL
  • Página de inicio: RFDCD
  • Página de inicio: RFDCL

26 de octubre

MOS: ASTRO

Eliminar : Redirección incorrecta y confusa que declara que este ensayo de WP:PROJPAGE es parte de las pautas de WP:MOS . (El nombre incorrecto de la página con "/Manual de estilo" en lugar de "/Consejos de estilo" se está abordando por separado en un RM). Eliminar este acceso directo será coherente con las eliminaciones anteriores de accesos directos del espacio de nombres "MOS:" (anteriormente pseudo-espacio de nombres) a ensayos de wikiproyectos y similares. El potencial de causar problemas con estos accesos directos es alto, porque los editores que los encuentran "citados" en argumentos de páginas de discusión tienen una alta probabilidad de confiar en que son pautas de MoS con la autoridad de la aceptación por consenso de la comunidad, en lugar de ser ensayos previos a WP:PROPOSAL de reciente creación por un número trivial de editores con casi ninguna participación de la comunidad. Los consejos en la página pueden incluso ser buenos, pero no son (¿todavía?) parte de MoS y no deberían hacerse pasar por uno. He creado un nuevo acceso directo WP:ASTROSTYLE para esta página (y parece ser el único aparte de MOS:ASTRO.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢  😼  01:20, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tolerancia caótica

No se menciona "tolerancia" ni "tolerancia al caos" en el artículo de destino. Parece ser un acrónimo de "tolerancia al caos", pero sin una explicación en la página de destino, las personas que utilicen este término de búsqueda se confundirían en cuanto a lo que significa o cómo se relaciona con el tema, sin ninguna descripción o definición que justifique la redirección. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 01:13 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Archivo de China

No se menciona "archivo" en el artículo de destino. Se creó con el resumen de edición "sitio web de", pero esto no se tiene en cuenta en el artículo de destino. El sitio web que se proporciona, para Asia Society, es asiasociety.org. Sin ningún contexto, esta redirección no es útil y es engañosa, ya que a las personas que buscan este término no se les proporciona el contexto de por qué terminaron aquí. ¿Quizás un lector estaba buscando un archivo sobre China? No hay respuestas, por el momento. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 01:08, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Chir'daki

No se menciona "chir" ni "daki" en el artículo de destino. La página tiene historia. Aun así, es una redirección inútil y engañosa a una página en la que no se trata el tema. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 01:06, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Asesinato de Paige Chivers

No se menciona a "Paige" ni a "Chivers" en el artículo de destino. El creador ha sido bloqueado por manipulación. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 01:04 26 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Chlaenius atratulus y Chlaenius azureulus

Azureulus y atratulus no se mencionan en la lista de especies de chlaenius, donde deberían estar de todos modos en enlaces rojos si existen, en ausencia de contenido de artículos dedicados. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 01:00, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Terror acogedor

Engañoso – no se menciona en el objetivo. Cremastra ( u — c ) 00:56, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Chlaenius anchomenoides y algunos

No tenemos un artículo dedicado a estas especies. Las personas que escriben chlaenius callichloris (y otras) ya saben que el género es chlaenius. No es útil como redirección a la lista de especies, porque no tenemos contenido dedicado. Eliminar por WP:REDYES . Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 00:55, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

Esta es una R de merge. El historial de esta ID de billetera es útil para preservar, pero como término de búsqueda y como una redirección útil no es ninguna de estas cosas, especialmente porque la ID de billetera no se menciona en el asunto, por lo que no hay ninguna indicación de lo que esta cadena de 34 caracteres podría significar en relación con el asunto. Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 00:38, 26 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

25 de octubre

Wikipedia:ZNB

ZNB no es el código de país de Zambia. Y si lo fuera, no sería una buena práctica redirigir un título de este tipo al espacio del portal. Las redirecciones de Wikipedia generalmente van a los títulos de Wikipedia donde se aplican. Y, según mi experiencia, hay WikiProjects de países en el espacio WP que se beneficiarían más de esto que un portal. Como WP:ZM . Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:53, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Geoffrey Chalmers

Nombre no mencionado en el objetivo. Significa libertad (ella/su) ( discusión ) 04:08 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

RfD anteriores para esta redirección y redirecciones similares:

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Alguien está dispuesto a analizar las fuentes?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, TechnoSquirrel69 ( suspiro )03:10, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir en la lista para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:se volvió a incluir parcialmente en la lista para cerrar el registro del 7 de octubre.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Thryduulf(discusión) 11:17 18 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 23:28, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Trabajo en equipo

El término nunca se menciona en el artículo de destino. ¿Quizás debería reorientarse hacia el Servicio de Empleo en la Polonia ocupada o ser una desambiguación? Tampoco se menciona en la versión del artículo de destino. El Servicio de Empleo aún no tiene un artículo wiki (parece estar relacionado con el Servicio Público de Empleo ) Piotr Konieczny, también conocido como Prokonsul Piotrus | responder aquí 23:15, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:¿Tiene alguna opinión sobre la nueva orientación propuesta?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 23:22, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Espacio S-compacto

Este parece ser un concepto diferente que no se describe en ninguna parte. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:42, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Eliminar o conservar?
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:06 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Rey usurpador

Se han descrito muchas figuras históricas reales como reyes usurpadores, incluso en algunos artículos de Wikipedia. Por lo tanto, esta redirección es demasiado ambigua para apuntar a este personaje. QuicoleJR ( discusión ) 20:23 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

eliminar . ni siquiera un viejo meme de tiktok como el gran rey del mal (aunque yo también lo nominaría, ya que el meme invariablemente incluye su nombre). de memoria, el rey avispa (como el tipo de Bug Fables ) también encaja en el perfil cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 13:11, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:06 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

N3º

Probablemente debería ser una página de DAB, ya que podría hacer referencia a White N3rd de LuvBug o N3RD Street (que en realidad debería estar en N3rd Street). ¿Me estoy perdiendo algo? Laun chba ller 11:47, 24 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hola, no estoy seguro de cómo terminó siendo una redirección desde n3rd street, ¡fue mi culpa! Debería ser su propia página de músico independiente para N3rd (cambió su nombre de White N3rd y sí, es parte de Luv Bug, que ya tiene su propia página wiki). Tommonovisio ( discusión ) 17:49, 24 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, ¿podrían ayudarme para que la página N3 pueda existir pero solucionemos el problema por el que se convirtió en una redirección? @ Launchballer Tommonovisio ( discusión ) 20:03, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola @Tommonovisio: Puedo informar que redirigí a N3rd de vuelta a LuvBug ya que ninguna de sus afirmaciones estaba respaldada por fuentes confiables ; después de eliminarlas, el artículo no afirmaba por qué era importante o significativo . Si puede proporcionar fuentes para respaldar sus afirmaciones, no dude en intentarlo de nuevo, pero considere comenzar en draftspace (es decir, Draft:N3RD).-- Laun chba ller 00:06, 26 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, gracias. Intentaré encontrar referencias para verificar los elogios y las afirmaciones. Lo complicado es que él escribe principalmente canciones para otras personas que han tenido éxito, más que sus propios lanzamientos. Tommonovisio ( discusión ) 17:42 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Desambiguar? ¿O redirigir aNerd (desambiguación)?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:03 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Isometría (matemáticas)

Dado que el tema principal, Isometría , ya es un tema matemático, no creo que esto deba ser una redirección a la página de desambiguación (que también parece estar compuesta por muchos WP:PTM ). (Tenga en cuenta que también existe Isometría (matemáticas) (desambiguación) ; no estoy seguro de cuántos precedentes existen para tales redirecciones). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:03, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:02 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Corán de Afganistán

Término muy general; este Corán no aparece en toda la primera página de resultados de Google. No veo un tema principal aquí. Rusalkii ( discusión ) 19:09 23 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lo mismo ocurre con el Corán en Afganistán . 19:10, 23 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) — El comentario anterior sin firmar lo agregó Rusalkii ( discusióncontribuciones )
Lo he añadido a esta discusión. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 19:41 23 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, mwwv converse edits 11:27, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar como clásico WP:XY . -1ctinus📝 🗨 14:12, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta no es una situación XY en absoluto, ya que la redirección solo se refiere a un único tema. Puede que sea vaga o ambigua o no, pero no es XY. Thryduulf ( discusión ) Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:44 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar por ser demasiado ambiguo; probablemente haya cientos de ejemplares del Corán en el Emirato Islámico de Afganistán. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 13:24 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las búsquedas de "El Corán en Afganistán" arrojan principalmente resultados sobre las protestas de quema del Corán en Afganistán en 2012 , seguidas de algunas discusiones en las redes sociales. Mi tendencia es eliminarlo porque es ambiguo, pero estoy dispuesto a intentar redactar una página DAB. Cremastra ( u — c ) 14:23, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho en el Corán en Afganistán . Cremastra ( u — c ) 20:22, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Tiene alguna opinión sobre la desambiguación?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 23:02, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Semillas de Snap 2.22.412829873

Tendría sentido tener una redirección para una versión de software particularmente importante, pero esa versión (y su importancia) tendría que mencionarse en la página de destino. WP:NOTCHANGELOG - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 17:23 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Probablemente también quiera ir a un encabezado/ancla de sección, en lugar de simplemente a Snapseed . En cualquier caso, elimine según WP:RETURNTORED ; puede haber información importante sobre este tema, pero no está aquí, y un enlace rojo es la mejor manera de transmitirlo. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 17:30, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola, gente agradable ;)... Probablemente lo hice cuando vi EXIF ​​y vi el software utilizado, así que hice clic y redirigí a lo que teníamos (el artículo) y probablemente eso sea todo. Por supuesto, no me molestaré si esto se cambia. Normalmente uso redirigir para cámaras en EXIF ​​(EXIF es "huella digital de cámaras"). Reroute=redirect -- Petar Milošević ( discusión ) 19:20 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar un debate más exhaustivo y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Complex / Rational 22:50, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Vector espacial

Estos deberían apuntar al mismo objetivo, pero parece que la estructura causal es la opción más apropiada. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 13:11, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 14:40 10 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:¿Alguien puede respaldar la sugerencia del editor de IP?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,asilvering(discusión) 22:17 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Tic tac, tic tac, tic tac

No estoy seguro de que estén correctamente apuntados. Tal vez Tick Tock sea un mejor objetivo. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 22:07 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Disturbios de Farage

Redirección negativa no mencionada en el artículo de destino. Una búsqueda rápida en Google no parece indicar que se trata de un término común. Candidato a eliminación rápida. -1ctinus📝 🗨 00:11, 24 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Buen día. Creé esta redirección no porque esté de acuerdo con el término, sino porque había visto que el nombre se usaba con frecuencia para referirse a estos disturbios en las redes sociales y en algunos sitios de noticias confiables (y menos confiables), como descubrió Thryduulf. El término es ciertamente tendencioso, admito que no estoy familiarizado con las políticas de Wikipedia sobre redirecciones. Mi razonamiento fue simplemente ayudar a los lectores que pueden conocer estos disturbios como los disturbios de Farage a llegar al artículo apropiado.
De todos modos, entiendo el motivo por el que propones eliminarlo. Personalmente, no tengo suficiente conocimiento sobre el tema del artículo como para incluir la mención de este apodo de una manera bien escrita. Independientemente del resultado de esta discusión, ¡gracias por editarlo! Mittzy ( discusión ) 13:11 24 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir en la lista para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:La mención aún no se ha agregado al objetivo ni aNigel Farage. Se notificó esta discusión en las dos páginas.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 08:51, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva publicación:¿Alguien está dispuesto a agregar una mención sobre el objetivo?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,asilvering(discusión) 21:53 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Texvc

El legado de basura no justifica una redirección suave doble desde el espacio principal. * Pppery * ha comenzado... 19:14, 8 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 22:07, 15 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar un debate más exhaustivo y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:Esto está por todos lados. ¿Algún otro apoyo a la sugerencia de compromiso de TechnoSquirrel69?
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,asilvering(discusión) 21:50, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Simbolismo (artes)

El uso más común del simbolismo en asociación con las artes es cuando se utiliza un elemento concreto dentro de una obra de arte visual, literaria o de otro tipo para representar una idea abstracta. Actualmente, el lugar de destino para ese tipo de simbolismo parece ser simplemente Símbolo (ACTUALIZACIÓN del 15 de octubre: ahora he creado una nueva página de destino para este concepto exacto: Símbolo artístico ). El "simbolismo" como movimiento social específico del siglo XIX es un uso mucho más limitado y oscuro. Las redirecciones con palabras similares (a saber, Simbolismo (arte) y Simbolismo en el arte ) también deberían redireccionarse en consecuencia. Wolfdog ( discusión ) 21:59, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Wolfdog No estoy seguro de entender tu nominación. ¿Estás diciendo que el simbolismo (artes) apunta al lugar correcto, pero que el simbolismo (arte) y el simbolismo en el arte deberían reorientarse para que coincidan? Thryduulf ( discusión ) 23:53 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es la primera vez que uso RFD, así que disculpen mi inexperiencia, pero no, estoy diciendo que está apuntando al lugar equivocado . Actualmente está apuntando a Simbolismo (movimiento) . Wolfdog ( discusión ) 00:05 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, el objetivo debería ser el objetivo actual de la redirección. Lo arreglaré y agregaré las otras redirecciones que mencionaste a la nominación. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:20 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, vale, claro, jaja, gracias. ¿Debería terminar con la discusión anterior? Wolfdog ( discusión ) 00:34 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, es un contexto útil. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:57 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 14:44 10 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,asilvering(discusión) 03:18 18 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 21:37, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Interrumpido

"Cancelado" significa dos cosas diferentes, ninguna asociada principalmente con los huesos. "Esponjoso" aparentemente está más asociado principalmente con los huesos, así que eso está bien cogsan (regámela) (acechame) 13:36, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 21:31, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sala de la India

El objetivo es el equipo masculino sin mencionar al equipo femenino. Debería dejarse como una redirección para fomentar la creación. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:56, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 21:30, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Zelda 2016

Breath of the Wild no se lanzó en 2016, sino en 2017. Además, Twilight Princess HD, otro juego de Zelda, ¡ salió en 2016! Sin embargo, creo que es poco probable que este término se refiera a cualquiera de los dos juegos, por lo que creo que deberíamos eliminarlo. QuicoleJR ( discusión ) 21:11 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ópera japonesa

Sugerir eliminación: el artículo de destino no menciona la ópera. El tema de la ópera japonesa es probablemente importante y este debería ser el enlace rojo según WP:RED Piotr Konieczny, también conocido como Prokonsul Piotrus | responder aquí 03:09, 19 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Eliminar Tal como está, esta redirección es increíblemente confusa: lleva al lector desprevenido a una página que no dice nada sobre la ópera. Dicho esto, ¿qué esperaba encontrar el buscador? ¿Una compañía o teatro de ópera en Japón? ¿Una ópera escrita por un compositor japonés? ¿Un género teatral japonés nativo similar a la ópera? Basura que entra, basura que sale , no deberíamos responder a una pregunta abierta con una respuesta aleatoria o incluso una colección de estas. Викидим ( discusión ) 19:46, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, lo que habrían esperado encontrar es algo que encajara en la Categoría:Ópera por país . Así que tal vez basura fuera, pero definitivamente no basura dentro. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:47, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que esta interpretación es la más plausible. Lamentablemente, no tenemos un texto similar a la ópera francesa . Викидим ( discusión ) 20:35 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 21:44 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva publicación:Para agruparOpera of Japan.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, -- T avix ( discusión )20:54 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

17 de junio de 2007 (17 de junio de 2007)

Desambiguación redundante. Cremastra ( u — c ) 20:01, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar (quitar de la existencia) por nom (nominador). también en dos (2) formatos diferentes (desiguales) (ymd y mdy), lo que me duele (me inflige dolor) cogsan (me regaña) (me acecha) 20:56, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de jefes de la serie Yoshi

En esta lista no se menciona ningún personaje principal que aparezca en la serie Yoshi (aparte de Bowser). QuicoleJR ( discusión ) 19:03 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar por nombre. no hagas caso del historial del primero, no hay salsa ahí cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 20:43, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mrinal Chauhan

No tiene sentido esta redirección, no hay ninguna cobertura sobre él en esta página. Debería eliminarse hasta que se publique un artículo real. Sports2021 ( discusión ) 17:23, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de vicepresidentes de la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa

No hay lista de vicepresidentes en ninguno de los objetivos. RfD abierta similar: Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión#Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 14:51 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hoppy la rana

Parece ser un meme similar pero no relacionado con el objetivo. Tampoco se menciona allí. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 14:33, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Campeonato Mundial de Atletismo en Pista Cubierta 2028

No hay información relevante ni mención del evento de 2028 en el objetivo, engañoso y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:39, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Futuros campeonatos mundiales de Fórmula 1

La única información relevante en el objetivo es que algunos de los grandes premios están contratados hasta el año x en Fórmula Uno#Grandes premios contratados . Tal como están las cosas, cualquiera que busque esto encontrará una falta de información relevante sobre el campeonato de esa temporada, por lo tanto, las redirecciones son engañosas y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy josh ( discusión ) 13:27, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sin duda, creaciones de artículos sin sentido. Quizá también sea una advertencia para el creador, ya que supongo que era la misma persona, para evitar que se vuelva a perder el tiempo con este ejercicio. Seasider53 ( discusión ) 13:35 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Seasider53 : No creo que sea necesaria una advertencia en este momento. Creo que el editor tiene la experiencia suficiente para no recrear innecesariamente las redirecciones si esta nominación resulta en una eliminación. A veces, una eliminación es suficiente y no creo que sea necesario ir más allá en este momento. Además, para que quede claro, ¿estás haciendo un comentario general o votando por la eliminación en este caso? Hola, soy josh ( discusión ) 13:41, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo su eliminación. Seasider53 ( discusión ) 13:42 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar todas las redirecciones que no sean de ayuda y que sean francamente inútiles. SSSB ( discusión ) 15:51 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Futuras temporadas de la Premier League india

No hay información relevante en el destino, elimínela por ser engañosa y WP:TOOSOON . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:17, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ceddin Deden

El artículo ya no menciona a Ceddin Deden en ningún sentido. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 contribs 11:25, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

4 de abril de 1974

Voy a volver a incluir esto en redirecciones para discusión porque creé esta redirección por error. La fecha correcta se suponía que era el 3 de abril de 1974. ¡El huracán Clyde ! 🌀 ¡Mi página de discusión! 05:59, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Anteriormente se había cerrado por falta de consenso. Probablemente cumplía los criterios de eliminación rápida, pero lo había enviado con anticipación y lo había modificado porque en ese momento se estaba llevando a cabo una discusión similar. ¡ El huracán Clyde 🌀 mi página de discusión! 06:00, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Propongo eliminar la redirección de error. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 mi página de discusión! 06:01, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como alternativa, yo preferiría reorientar el tiempo a abril de 1974. Huracán Clyde 🌀 ¡Mi página de discusión! 00:40, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 03:38, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Voluntad (sociología)

La palabra "voluntad" ni siquiera aparece en la página y no resulta obvio a qué se refiere. Batrachoseps ( discusión ) 15:27 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Mantener o reorientar?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 03:37, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Asiática Sub-20 de la AFC 2025

No hay escuadrones en la lista de destino, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:13, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Mundial de Beach Soccer de la FIFA 2025

No hay escuadrones en la lista de destino, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:13, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Plantillas de la Copa Africana de Naciones 2025

Escuadrones no incluidos en el objetivo, redirección engañosa. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 03:12, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

3 de junio de 2007

No es de mucha ayuda. Redirigir a Portal:Actualidad/3 de junio de 2007 según los argumentos en WP:RDATE . Cremastra ( u — c ) 00:23, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eirik Suhrke

Actualmente, los enlaces al nombre del compositor Eirik Suhrke llevan al artículo del juego Ridiculous Fishing. Esto ha creado confusión en algunas páginas de discusión, ya que se le atribuye haber trabajado en varios juegos y su mención en el artículo de Ridiculous Fishing se limita a una oración que dice que fue el compositor del juego. Dada la falta de cobertura sobre el propio hombre y la extensa lista de trabajos notables en los que ha estado involucrado, parece que sería mejor eliminar la redirección, ya que apunta a un artículo que contiene tanta información sobre él como sobre cualquier otro juego en el que haya trabajado. XeCyranium ( discusión ) 04:36, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Cuartel General de CSSH

Eliminación, por favor, consulte aquí las razones. En resumen, la abreviatura es una investigación original y no se utiliza en fuentes oficiales. He limpiado todos los enlaces a esta redirección, pero debería eliminarse para evitar que se trate como un nombre alternativo válido. 103.66.132.62 (discusión) 11:58, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]


24 de octubre

Investigación: Reclutamiento, retención y deserción de administradores de Wikipedia

Extraño espacio no relacionado con nombres; es muy probable que deba eliminarse. Dejando eso de lado: la plantilla simple {{ soft redirect }} no se usa en el espacio principal (en la línea del sentimiento expresado en WP:SOFTSP ). Por lo tanto, consulte esta discusión sobre eliminación ; si se considera que esto es digno de existir tal como está, entonces será necesario restaurar esa plantilla. —  Godsy  ( CONVERSACIÓN ) 21:58, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar . resultó de un enlace mal formado en una plantilla ( Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, probablemente opuesto a meta:Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, ya que el segundo enlace era wmf:Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Administrator Experiences 2024 Survey Privacy Statement), por lo que es más fácil simplemente arreglarlo y dar por terminado el asunto. También recomendaría notificar a bgerdemann cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 14:36, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pensándolo bien, ¿valdría la pena arreglar los enlaces? Los únicos casos en los que no fue intencional fueron en las páginas de discusión de Timwi y Uozurumba .
Para empeorar un poco las cosas, el error parece haberse extendido a los equivalentes de la plantilla en otros idiomas, lo cual no es totalmente genérico, si soy totalmente honesto, pero es muy probable que sea un problema para las otras wikis cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:52, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Copa Mundial de Rugby 2035

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención del evento de 2035, lo que lo convierte en una redirección engañosa e inútil. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 21:12 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre y WP:REDYES . Cremastra ( u — c ) 01:39, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Índice de democracia

No estoy seguro de qué tan importante es el índice de The Economist para el nombre con mayúscula inicial, pero estos deberían apuntar al mismo objetivo. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:42, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

(2) Índice de la democracia : esta es una redirección casi sin sentido. Ha tenido 2 visitas en los últimos 30 días (en comparación con las 9.892 de Índice de la democracia ). Por lo tanto, no creo que importe mucho lo que le pase. Sin embargo, "Índice de la democracia", a diferencia de "Índice de la democracia", no está contenido en el título de ningún índice en particular, por lo que no hay ningún índice en particular con ninguna pretensión de ser un significado primario. También hay un caso para decir que en ausencia de una razón de peso para hacer lo contrario es mejor dejarlo donde está, porque alguien en algún lugar puede esperar que esté allí, aunque en este caso ese es un caso extremadamente débil. Mi conclusión es que, como dije anteriormente, no importa mucho lo que le pase a esta redirección, pero en general prefiero dejarla donde está.
(3) No me parece convincente el argumento de que ambas redirecciones deberían apuntar al mismo destino. No hay ninguna razón por la que lo que sucede si alguien busca un título deba verse influenciado por lo que hubiera sucedido si hubiera buscado el otro.
WP:TLDR versión abreviada: Mantenlos como están. JBW ( discusión ) 21:44 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 21:30 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:57, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Copa Mundial de Críquet 2035

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención del evento de 2035, lo que lo convierte en una redirección engañosa e inútil. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 20:34, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Aerolíneas del noroeste

RfD anteriores para esta redirección y redirecciones similares:

Eliminar una redirección no plausible, solo tiene 12 resultados de Google después de eliminar los resultados duplicados y 2 de esos resultados son definitivamente de Wikipedia y algunos de los otros también podrían serlo. No hay razón para tener una redirección a partir de un error tipográfico tan oscuro según WP:COSTLY y, aunque se mantuvo en 2012, hay más consenso en 2024 de que las redirecciones inverosímiles deberían eliminarse como Georgia (estado de EE. UU. y Wikipedia). Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 20:07, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar . Improbable error ortográfico. Kablammo . — Comentario anterior sin firmar añadido por Kablammo ( discusióncontribs ) 09:47 25 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Hanningfield del Norte

Aunque esta redirección existe desde 2011, no parece que este término esté en uso. Los resultados de Google entre comillas devuelven solo 8 resultados después de eliminar los resultados duplicados. De ellos, 3 dicen que no hay "North Hanningfield" y uno dice "aproximadamente 4 km al norte. Embalse de Hanningfield", lo que significa que la palabra "Norte" no es para este término aparente. Tampoco puedo encontrar ninguna evidencia en mapas antiguos. Si bien hay East Hanningfield , South Hanningfield y West Hanningfield, no parece haber uno del Norte. Si solo hubiera un South Hanningfield, sería sorprendente que no hubiera un North Hanningfield o al menos un East o West Hanningfield, pero parece que el del Sur tiene ese nombre para distinguirse de los del Este y Oeste, no del Norte. A menos que aparezca alguna otra evidencia, sugeriría eliminarlo. El autor fue bloqueado en 2012 por "Vandalismo desagradable, mezclado con otras ediciones". Tenga en cuenta que creé el artículo de destino en 2010. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 18:06 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

órgano(s) bucal(es)

Cerré antes con el consenso de que no somos biólogos. Lo estoy intentando de nuevo con el mismo razonamiento (que las bocas tienen otros órganos, como dientes y lenguas), así que espero que todos hayan estudiado a sus mordedores. Aunque todavía no estoy seguro de si volver a apuntar a la boca sería la mejor idea. cogsan (me regañan) (me acechan) 17:46, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Creo que la boca es la mejor opción para el órgano bucal : es el órgano bucal, solo que contiene algunos otros más pequeños. La boca es, podríamos decir, la madre de todos los órganos bucales. Cremastra ( discusión ) 00:14 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • No deberíamos reorientar esto a "boca". Nadie escribe "órgano bucal" en Wikipedia y espera encontrar "boca", ya que solo tenemos la palabra "boca" para eso. La razón por la que existe "órgano bucal" es para describir diferentes tipos de cosas similares a la boca. Como lo que tienen los anélidos . No describe los dientes ni la lengua. -- asilvering ( discusión ) 00:57, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
    Por definición, sí. Los dientes, al ser huesos, son un poco dudosos (¡algunos podrían decir que estaba... equivocado!), pero las lenguas , como se señala en el artículo, son órganos explícitos que están en la boca (y, por lo tanto, bucales), y también lo son los labios ahora que lo pienso de nuevo. Este artículo que encontré a los 20 minutos de buscar se refiere a los "órganos bucales" como órganos en la boca de los humanos, y este artículo hace lo mismo con las aves (y con menos sutileza). Si hay especies de aves y humanos que tienen ventosas, probablemente las pasé por alto, en cuyo caso mi mal cogsan (regámeme) (acechame) 01:46, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
    ...y por supuesto, en el momento exacto en que decido hacer clic en responder, recuerdo que hay una lista de órganos del cuerpo humano aquí, y resulta que enumera los dientes como órganos que están en la boca. ¿Cuáles son las probabilidades~? sí, sé que otras especies también tienen bocas que pueden no tener lenguas, labios o dientes, solo estoy usando a los humanos como ejemplo cogsan (regañame) (acechame) 01:49, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir en la lista para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:Notificado de esta discusión en el objetivo propuestoBoca.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 17:29, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Sinceramente, entonces, eliminémoslo . Cualquier objetivo será imperfecto o al menos controvertido, por lo que creo que, lamentablemente, la eliminación es la mejor opción en este caso. Cremastra ( u — c ) 01:41, 25 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Exclusión (película)

Redirección sin ninguna razón importante para existir. Esta redirección se produjo como resultado de Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/exclusión (película) (segunda nominación) , en la que una persona sugirió una redirección mientras que dos personas votaron por la eliminación directa, pero representa una película que nunca se hizo ni se estrenó, y "existe" solo como un proyecto de desarrollo de guión que anunció hace 20 años pero que luego abandonó debido a problemas de casting antes de filmar siquiera un fotograma. Lo que significa que no se menciona en absoluto en el artículo de Mehta para proporcionar al lector algún contexto de por qué se redirige allí, y el artículo de Mehta ya es lo suficientemente largo y detallado como para ahondar en trivialidades indebidas sobre proyectos no realizados, por lo que no tendría ningún valor agregar ninguna mención al respecto en su artículo; e incluso si agregáramos una mención al respecto a su artículo, como es una película que nunca sucedió, hay muy pocas posibilidades de que alguien la busque por el título de todos modos. Por lo tanto, no tiene sentido mantenerlo como una redirección si el artículo de destino no tiene ningún contenido al respecto. Bearcat ( discusión ) 17:17 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tesoneta

Eliminar para fomentar la creación del artículo. Redirección de alto tráfico con el único dato presente siendo el año de creación. Respublik ( discusión ) 16:50 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Borrar . No se menciona en el objetivo. (El objetivo es su padre.) Geschichte ( discusión ) 06:33 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Agregué una mención. El hijo parece notable, ¿deberíamos eliminar la redirección o simplemente etiquetarlo como {{R con posibilidades}}? Jähmefyysikko ( discusión ) 07:47, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿O quizás convertirlo en un artículo? Geschichte ( discusión ) 08:13, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 14:13, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Arunachal Pradesh

No hay lista de líderes de la oposición en los objetivos. RfD abierta similar: Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión#Lista de líderes de la oposición en la Asamblea Legislativa de Goa. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:15 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar todo : Son engañosos, teniendo en cuenta que no hay información sobre los objetivos. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 20:38, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mongoloide americano

Reorientar Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: retarget

Sabiduría india

Probablemente sea una broma, pero definitivamente no es una redirección que valga la pena. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:35 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

eliminar . Ambas palabras son vagas como h*ck en este contexto. Podría referirse al folclore o la mitología con la misma facilidad con la que podría referirse a cualquier otra cosa. cogsan (regañame) (acechame) 12:10, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Pueblo norteamericano

Esta redirección es demasiado vaga como para referirse a los nativos de NA y mucho menos a todos los nativos de NA y SA. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:32 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris Talk! 07:23, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Los verdaderos G se mueven en silencio como lasaña

Esta es la letra número 29 del segundo verso. Y "lasaña" no se menciona en el artículo de destino. No parece ser necesario tener esto como redirección cuando la forma natural de llegar al título de un artículo enciclopédico es escribiendo el título de un artículo enciclopédico, porque para la mayoría de los lectores habituales, no hay forma de saber qué letra tiene y qué no tiene una redirección existente, por lo que la jugada más segura el 100% del tiempo es identificar el título de la canción y proceder en función de eso, no navegar a través de una línea en particular para una canción en particular, una hazaña que es imposible para esencialmente todos los demás artículos de canciones en Wikipedia (ya que no conozco muchas redirecciones de la línea 2 del verso 2 que existan hacia canciones). Utopes ( discusión / cont ) 00:26, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar el término de búsqueda de Wikipedia que no es plausible, como lo demuestran las pocas visitas a la página. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 00:57 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Eliminar o conservar?
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

11ss-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa

El objetivo utiliza β (beta griega), no ß ( eszett ), por lo que se debe eliminar según el precedente de RfD . Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 02:54, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Creado automáticamente por Eubot, solo 110 visitas (en su mayoría probablemente bots/scrapers) en la última década. Estoy dispuesto a aceptar la sustitución de eszett, ya que se ven similares y están en más teclados que la versión beta griega, pero reemplazar eszett con su grafema correspondiente " ss " es ir demasiado lejos. ¡háblame!04:20 24 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar según Ca. Eszette que se utiliza aquí es un método para reemplazar el carácter beta; usar SS en su lugar es... si no tienes acceso a Beta O Eszette, me imagino que buscarías B y escribirías 11b-hidroxiesteroide deshidrogenasa . 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:31 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

23 de octubre

El diddler y el diddler

Manténgase , clásico {{ r de evitar la doble redirección }} . Diddler => tramposo => ​​tramposo . Cremastra ( u — c ) 00:32, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tapices MUCK

No se menciona en la página de destino, por lo que no resulta útil para los usuarios. Parece ser un videojuego furry aleatorio (?). Schützenpanzer (discusión) 21:03 23 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : Decidí hacer una inmersión histórica.
-Esto es un remanente de un artículo de la era de 2015 sobre el juego, al que se vinculaba tanto desde Furry fandom#Role-playing (circa septiembre de 2015) como desde TinyMUCK
. -El 6 de octubre de 2015, este artículo fue incluido en la lista de eliminación de AfD. El resultado, el 11 de octubre, fue Redirigir a lo que, en ese momento, era su mención en Furry fandom#Role-playing (ver arriba). Sin embargo, me gustaría señalar que, si bien el nominador abogó por la redirección, los votos positivos fueron en cambio un voto por la redirección/fusión y un voto por la fusión, por lo que no estoy completamente seguro de por qué el que cerró hizo una simple redirección en su lugar.
-UN DÍA después de que se cerrara la AfD, el usuario: Chaos5023 (a quien me gustaría señalar que participó en la discusión) vio que el enlace a Tapestries MUCK en la página del fandom furry era ahora una redirección circular y que la declaración en sí no tenía fuentes, y decidió que la mejor medida era eliminar la declaración completa. Por sí sola, estoy de acuerdo con Chaos5023, pero en cierto modo hace que la discusión sobre la AfD sea irrelevante...
-...porque ahora estamos aquí, 9 años después
En realidad, no estoy seguro de qué hacer aquí. Mi primer instinto es redirigir a TinyMUCK , pero tiene el mismo problema que Furry fandom#Role-playing : elimine la redirección ahora circular y no queda ninguna razón para mencionar Tapestries MUCK, la mención existente no tiene ninguna fuente. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:49, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Intenté buscar fuentes que mencionaran Tapestries, ya que sentí que esa podría ser la forma más fácil de desenredar este nudo, pero no tuve éxito con mis esfuerzos (ciertamente un tanto superficiales). A menos que redirija a TinyMUCK, tal vez sea hora de eliminar esta redirección. DonIago ( discusión ) 13:29 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Naoki Tanisaki

Esta redirección es innecesaria y engañosa, ya que este nombre alternativo surge de un malentendido sobre la ortografía japonesa. Cuando Onodera se hizo pasar por Naoki Tanizaki, utilizó una ortografía kanji diferente para su nombre; no cambió la forma en que se leía el nombre y no debería cambiar la forma en que se transcribe. MordecaiXLII ( discusión ) 21:40 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Vota para redirigir a Naoki TanisakiNaoki Tanizaki , según los errores ortográficos comunes en WP:POFR , que incluye "Probables errores ortográficos" como motivos para crear redirecciones. De todos modos, los kanji 崎 y 嵜 se leen como "さき" (saki), por lo que debería clasificarse como un posible error ortográfico para Tanizaki.
Estoy de acuerdo con el nombre en que no hay ninguna razón para que se redirija a T-Hawk (luchador) . MetropolitanIC ( 💬 | 📝 ) 03:51, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 21:29 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Rey Rolando

O desambiguar o redirigir a Lista de personajes de Sofia the First y apuntar a Roland I y Roland II allí, y es probable que se mencione a Minimus en la página de destino nominada. Además, redacté Minimus (desambiguación) , pero necesita una mejora para el personaje del caballo. 88.235.230.49 ( discusión ) 07:30, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva inclusión:los participantes propusieron cuatro objetivos. ¿Se debe volver a incluir alguno de ellos o eliminar la ambigüedad?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris talk! 05:03, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Davidgoodheart añadió el personaje de Spaceballs a Roland (desambiguación) después de la nueva publicación. Jay 💬 14:14, 20 de octubre de 2024 (UTC ) [ responder ]

He redactado una página de desambiguación en la redirección. Cremastra ( u — c ) 20:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:43, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Borrar Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . Resultado: Eliminación rápida según criterio G10 .

Juan átomos

No es un error ortográfico común ni probable, prácticamente no hay objetivos entrantes. Si por alguna razón se mantiene, diría que se redirija a la página de John Adams. De lo contrario, mi voto es Eliminar . TNstingray ( discusión ) 13:06 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Cremastra (u—c) 20:11, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Srishti

No se menciona en el objetivo (no ahora, y no cuando se agregó una nota de sombrero ). Mirando Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti , hay un nombre ( Srishti Kaur , Srishti Rana , Srishti Jain ), Srishti (film) , Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology , y las coincidencias parciales de los títulos de Srishti Madurai y Srishtidnyan . Mirando las visitas a la página, no estoy seguro de si el nombre es el tema principal o si no hay un tema principal ; creo que podría depender de si los otros usos se derivan todos del nombre. También ayudaría si tuviera alguna idea de por qué se redirigió a unidades de tiempo hindúes ; le haré ping a Vinay Jha en caso de que lo recuerden. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 02:11, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris Talk! 09:18, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Hay un tema principal?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Proteger a Scarlet

un error ortográfico plausible y un tpyo cogsan no tan plausible (regáchame) (acechame) 18:15, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Oh, esto fue mi error jajaja. Creé esta redirección aparentemente sin darme cuenta de que escribí "Proteger" en lugar de "Proyecto". Voto para eliminarlo . Loytra ( discusión ) 00:50 25 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ansem

caso extraño, que raya en lo absurdo. léelo bajo tu propio riesgo, esta es la forma más simple y clara que puedo decirlo. "ansem" se refiere a dos personajes de kingdom hearts. uno es un nerd al que le gusta disfrazarse de momia, que aparece en la lista aquí , y el otro es un xehanort que robó el nombre porque los chicos son chicos, supongo. el xehanort parece ser el tema principal (aunque solo sea porque apareció primero y es más atractivo ), pero no por mucho, y kh speech a menudo desambigua las cosas al referirse al último como "ansem, (el) buscador de la oscuridad" (o sod) y al primero como "ansem el sabio". este título se ha utilizado anteriormente para redirecciones tanto para ansems como para un dab para... ambos ansems (más dos personas que fueron confundidas con un ansem durante unos segundos cada una). opiniones sobre... en serio, ¿cualquier cosa? cogsan (χ-BLADE!) (ouchie ouch) 17:00, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva publicación:¿Mantener y agregar hatnote o redirigir a la lista de personajes de KH?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 20:57 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:La misma pregunta que en la publicación anterior. También se notificó esta discusión en el objetivo propuesto.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 07:41, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Trastorno de personalidad adaptativa

Eliminar. Es un nombre engañoso porque "trastorno de adaptación" no pertenece a los "trastornos de personalidad" en ningún sistema de clasificación psiquiátrica. Un usuario intentó agregarlo al cuadro lateral Trastorno de personalidad. También podría sugerir que era un nombre histórico para el trastorno de adaptación, pero eso tampoco es cierto. (Tenga en cuenta que, cuando realice búsquedas del término en Google, Google Scholar o Google Books, utilice "s para buscar el término exacto y seguirá obteniendo numerosos resultados en los que los finales y comienzos de oraciones o los encabezados de tablas colisionan. Además, las apariciones de "trastorno de adaptación / personalidad" se interpretan como "trastorno de adaptación / trastorno de personalidad" en la literatura. Aparte de eso, hay un par de usos incorrectos y discusiones en foros sobre la existencia de los términos). 89.132.72.63 (discusión) 06:22, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar . Rechacé una solicitud rápida porque (creí haber) encontrado alguna evidencia de que el término estaba en uso. Ahora estoy convencido por los argumentos del autor original. Justlettersandnumbers ( discusión ) 08:45, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Justlettersandnumbers seguramente la razón para rechazar la eliminación rápida sería que no se aplica ninguna CSD a esto, independientemente de cualquier evidencia de que el término esté en uso. A7V2 ( discusión ) 06:24, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, ¡A7V2 ! – si no hubiera encontrado evidencia de que estaba en uso, mi siguiente paso habría sido mirar el historial, donde habría descubierto que no era elegible según WP:R3 ya que fue creado en 2017. Justlettersandnumbers ( discusión ) 11:27, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sustituido

Reorientar Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: retarget


22 de octubre

Bonnie Pointer (álbum) (desambiguación)

No creo que esta "doble desambiguación" sea una redirección útil. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 23:03 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

cisne

El artículo no menciona el Swancore. Sin embargo, me gustaría explicar por qué existe esta redirección, ya que es probable que exista un microgénero extremadamente pequeño conocido como "Swancore", que básicamente es post punk progresivo al estilo de Will Swan. Pero, de cualquier manera, no se menciona el swancore en el artículo y no puedo encontrar muchas fuentes buenas sobre el género, por lo que convertirlo en un artículo o hacer una mención de él en el artículo de Will Swan no es una buena idea. Gaismagorm (discusión) 21:57 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Disney

Varios candidatos potenciales ( la empresa , el hombre y varios destinos potenciales para las subsidiarias de la empresa), todos ellos frecuentemente referidos simplemente como Disney. Honestamente, probablemente me estoy olvidando de algunos. No sé necesariamente cuál es el tema principal de esta redirección, pero si los argumentos de la gente en esta discusión en The Walt Disney Company son una indicación, los editores allí seguramente creen que no es ese artículo. De todos modos, esta redirección debe ser redirigida a un mejor destino. Ladtrack ( discusión ) 18:02, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo como está y coméntelo en Talk:The Walt Disney Company : Este ha sido un tema de debate durante bastante tiempo en cuanto a qué se refiere el WP:PRIMARYTOPIC del término "Disney". Además de la discusión mencionada anteriormente, también hubo este debate en el DAB de Disney desde principios de este año que generó inquietudes sobre cuál es el tema principal. Si bien no ha habido consenso en esas discusiones, la mayoría de las fuentes se refieren a "Disney" como la compañía o una de sus unidades. Sigo creyendo que la compañía es el WP:PRIMARYTOPIC de "Disney", aunque si eso todavía está en disputa o no se puede validar, entonces sería adecuado redirigir esto a la página del DAB en Disney (desambiguación) . No estoy seguro de si el consenso ha cambiado desde esas discusiones, aunque señalaré que esas discusiones generalmente no han tenido consenso para reorientar esta redirección o mover los títulos de los artículos. Hay notas de desambiguación apropiadas en el artículo de la Compañía y en otros artículos donde sea relevante, y creo que esto puede beneficiarse de una discusión más exhaustiva en el artículo de la Compañía. Trailblazer101 ( discusión ) 18:25 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dudé un tiempo en traer esto aquí, y si te fijaste, esta propuesta está escrita de manera que no sugiera que alguno de los objetivos potenciales sea o no el correcto, incluido el objetivo actual. Si lo estuviera haciendo yo mismo, probablemente también habría seleccionado a la empresa, aunque creo que está cerca. Sin embargo, según la discusión a la que hice referencia, estoy casi seguro de que hay consenso en The Walt Disney Company de que ese artículo no es el tema principal para el término Disney. Es cierto que esta es mi prueba visual porque la propuesta pedía algo más, pero de las doce personas que votaron sobre esa propuesta, diez de ellas sintieron que el tema principal no era ese artículo. Se supone que Wikipedia se basa en el consenso y, dejando de lado mis propios sentimientos, simplemente no puedo ver cómo un término debería redirigirse allí cuando la gente de ese artículo piensa que no debería hacerlo. Ladtrack ( discusión ) 17:58, 23 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En primer lugar

No creo que sea buena idea una redirección relacionada con el adverbio a una página que trata específicamente sobre el número. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:02 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 14:18, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Tenorite (tipo de letra)

No se menciona en Target, lo que significa que es una redirección algo engañosa para alguien que busca el término y espera encontrar información al respecto. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 23:25, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ha vuelto a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Por favor, añada nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Thryduulf(discusión) 13:08 22 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Campeonato de Futsal de la CONCACAF 2028

El objetivo no contiene información ni mención sobre el evento de 2028. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 12:20, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ópera cómica específica del sitio

Según Internet, "el teatro específico del lugar se refiere a una representación teatral que se lleva a cabo en un espacio no tradicional". Esto debe reorientarse, pero no estoy seguro de dónde. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 11:17 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

QSO J0100-2708

Se han descubierto más de un millón de cuásares. Este en particular no aparece mencionado en ninguna página wiki. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 11:10 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Félix Trinidad vs.Ray Lovato

No se menciona en la página de destino. Parece un engaño, pero se revirtió la incorporación de la plantilla CSD. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 10:03, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Speedly Keep the redirect es el título de un combate de boxeo que se disputó en la cartelera preliminar de la página de destino. Planeo agregar una sección sobre esa pelea similar a Bernard Hopkins vs. Robert Allen y Roy Jones Jr. vs. Bernard Hopkins . Sam11333 ( discusión ) 10:10 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El objetivo se ha actualizado para incluir la información sobre el asunto de la redirección. Sam11333 ( discusión ) 18:52 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Paquete 0451-28

Esta es una parte de la lista de objetivos, pero es una de las 8000 y no se menciona como una de las más notables allí. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 09:10, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Bussy Anand

Keep Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . Resultado: retirada

Cuando el horizonte está abajo, es interesante. Cuando el horizonte está arriba, es interesante. Cuando el horizonte está en el medio, ¡es aburrido como la mierda!

Delete Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: eliminar

No hay fiesta como una fiesta de Diddy

No aparece en la lista de destino. Si se conserva, también tengo curiosidad por redirigir a las acusaciones de mala conducta sexual de Sean Combs , dado que la cita está relacionada con los medios populares. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( discusión ) 01:00, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 07:58, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Tenga en cuenta que el partido Diddy existe y tiene como objetivo las acusaciones de mala conducta sexual de Sean Combs . Tampoco se menciona en el objetivo. Siento que se podría agregar el término, pero me mantendré lo más alejado posible de encontrar fuentes para ello. ¿Debería incluirse con esto? mwwv converseedits 17:20, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de enterarme de White Party (Sean Combs) . ¿Alguna opinión sobre el retargeting? mwwv converseedits 18:03, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario : He añadido al partido Diddy a la nominación. (Haciendo ping a Mwwv para que me avisen de esto). Steel1943 ( discusión ) 21:29 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Cuántos de nosotros los tenemos?

La frase redirecciona a la canción Whodini como letra clave. La frase se indica en el artículo donde indica que Bone Thugs-n-Harmony sampleó la canción en su canción "Friends", que aparentemente ha sido retitulada "How Many of Us Have Them" en algún lanzamiento (según la página. Esa canción está en el álbum The Art of War (álbum de Bone Thugs-n-Harmony) . Además, "¿cuántos de nosotros los tenemos?" es un poema de Danez Smith . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( discusión ) 00:55, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hice esto después de una búsqueda, elimínelo si está mal GeorgeMemulous ( discusión ) 01:32, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 07:57, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Cacao

Por WP:RFOR

También nominó a Kahakos , Kahakō , Tohutō y Pōtae . Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 00:54, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, L iz ¡Lee! ¡Habla! 07:56, 22 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Refinar todas las variantes de Kahakō a Macron (diacrítico)#Kahakō . Refinar todas las variantes de Tohutō y Pōtae (con más variantes creadas según Tamzin) a Macron (diacrítico)#Tohutō . (La sección define Pōtae como un nombre alternativo para Tohutō en maorí).
WP:RLANG (citado anteriormente como WP:RFOR ) no se aplica aquí; los términos redirigidos desde están definidos y explicados explícitamente en relación con el idioma del que provienen (hawaiano y maorí respectivamente), lo que significa que, de hecho, tienen una fuerte afinidad. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 11:42 22 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

21 de octubre

El mundo (arma)

Los stands no son inherentemente "armas". Los stands como Emperor (una pistola) y Anubis (una katana) son armas bastante literales, y Heritage for the Future tiene "stands de armas" (que es una mecánica de juego, no una categoría literal), pero World (un fantasma potenciador) no es ninguna de las dos cosas. No puedo nombrar ningún caso notable de alguien que use un mundo como arma literal, además de quizás Amid Evil 's Celestial Garra, que dispara planetas. Cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 19:21, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 23:38, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

AN/ALQ-128

El tema de esta redirección, el AN/ALQ-128, apenas se menciona en la página de destino sobre un avión, el McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle . El destino es una subsección que enumera múltiples especificaciones para el avión. El lector debe buscar muy a fondo para encontrar el ALQ-128 mencionado. Esta redirección no tiene ningún propósito real y debería eliminarse. — TadgStirkland 401 (Tadg Talk ) 21:26, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En realidad, parece que este era un artículo hasta 2022, cuando fue nominado como PROD, pero luego fue desproducido y redirigido a su objetivo actual. Tal vez deberíamos anular el BLAR original y enviarlo a AFD. Natg 19 ( discusión ) 02:10 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
eliminar . no es que sea un experto en artilugios militares, pero la segunda y tercera fuentes en la diferencia previa a Blar no parecen tan confiables , significativas , no generadas por el usuario, no obsoletas por raspado y plagio ... honestamente, tampoco estoy poniendo demasiada fe en la primera (que actualmente está inactiva, ya que el archivo de Internet también está inactivo), ya que la redacción allí implica que se trata más del AN/ALR-56. Encontré un artículo aparentemente confiable que lo menciona, pero es de pasada, ni siquiera sobre el F-15, y parece que solo lo menciona por accidente (mezclándolo con el AN/ALQ-218, probablemente) cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 16:46, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 23:37, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Nuestro dinero

ver historial para la explicación. vago, no mencionado en el objetivo, no mencionado en artículos sobre juegos de azar y terminología de juegos de azar, sin entrada en wikcionario, etc. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:27, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Jugo de fruta real

¿A diferencia de jugo de fruta falso? ¿Se refiere a jugo real o fruta real? Creado por un editor que fue bloqueado por trollear con redirecciones , el término no se menciona en el objetivo y no creo que haya ningún objetivo potencialmente utilizable. cogsan (regáchame) (acechame) 20:18, 21 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dialecto del Ulster

Después de crearlo, me di cuenta de que el inglés del Ulster y el irlandés del Ulster también podrían incluirse en esta frase, por lo que no estoy seguro de si es ambiguo. Web-julio ( discusión ) 18:04 21 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Desambiguar Mi búsqueda muestra que "idioma/dialecto del Ulster" se utiliza para referirse a todos los idiomas de la región del Ulster. [24][25] Ca ¡háblame!22:20 21 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Hiperión (Helsinki)

Appears to be a future building, but it's not mentioned at the target at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God (artwork)

While "God" is mentioned at the target, I'm not seeing anything about an art work. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: makes no sense. Is it implied that the god the creator believes in is an artwork of the universe? Or that the universe is the artwork of said deity? Cremastra (u — c) 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. even the term "god" is vague here. could refer to fanart of arceus for all we know cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayshelle Peyton

Character who's not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of the opposition in the Goa Legislative Assembly

No list of leaders of the opposition at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Taipei women's national under-17 football team

The under-17 team is not mentioned in any capacity at the target. Based on the ages in the included roster, this is the regular women's team. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CzarNok

Not mentioned anywhere in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2031 FIBA Basketball World Cup

There's no relevant information listed at the target and not a single mention of the event. WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy speakers of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly

There is no list of deputy speakers at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine women's national under-17 football team

The under-17 team is not mentioned or discussed at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan women's national under-17 football team

The under-17 team is not mentioned or discussed at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crapulinsky

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy for the reasoning behind this RFD. I didn't notice that the other redirect was misspelled at first. To keep this short, retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Nickps (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Artist - Making Her Bed

Not mentioned at the target page and the generic words make google searches quite hard to do. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wheaton's law

Unless there is an appropriate local target for this page, deletion should be contemplated. The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). Thus, see this deletion discussion; if this is deemed worthy to exist as is, then that template will need to be restored. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: I've created a separate article. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Crapulinksy

Not mentioned in the target or anywhere on Wikipedia. As the HTML comment in the redirect tells us, the term comes from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which itself was referencing Heinrich Heine's Two Knights. Since, as far as I know, the term isn't used to refer to Napoleon III outside the Eighteenth Brumaire, I think the redirect should be retargeted to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a reference be added there. Nickps (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 90L

Invest numbers are frequently reused by the NHC and others; and often multiple times during the same year. It is this, not feasible to have a redirect like this given the certainty that another storm will receive the 90L designation in the near future. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to give a suggestion; I’d say delete this entry and salt ALL possible invest designations (90s with suffix letters A, B, C, E, L, M, P, Q, S, and W) that way something like this can’t happen again. They’re not going to retire invest designations and they're going to use them multiple times. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this. I feel like we have had this discussion a few dozen times. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decco Bishop

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaca Dam

Like #Mollejon Dam below, this is a separate dam that is not covered at the target article beyond a single passing mention. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tavantius (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mollejon Dam

This redirect is to a separate dam, not an alternate name for the Chalillo Dam itself, hence, I think it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force)

Disambiguation was written incorrectly. The correct name is Half-Life: Opposing Force, not Half-life, Opposing force. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch into a new adventure!

Not mentioned in target, has received less than a hundred pageviews throughout its entire existence, and a search online did not bring up anything related to the Mario franchise. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

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

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca talk to me! 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.
If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.
Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless and accurate hamster717🐉(discuss anything!🐹✈️my contribs🌌🌠) 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Mu

Seems like an implausible search term. There seem to be quite a few sororities/fraternities with this name, but none with a wiki article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oman women's national under-17 football team

No mention of this team on the target page. No relevant Google search hits even -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not confident this even exists. Cremastra (u — c) 22:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harshveer Sekhon

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot.

I'm easy to find

Seems to be from a quote from 2016 based on some Googling. If not mentioned at target, seems not relevant enough to be a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

Not mentioned at target page/ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Novo

Delete: There's no longer a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Bouba and Kiki

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Α-Methylmescaline

Redirect subject is never mentioned in the target article, and only other editor/page creator is site banned. Should be deleted. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRAS 13349+1428

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

HandBrake 1.7.3 2024021000

WP:NOTCHANGELOG and this version of the software is not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucca oil

Appears to be product based on some searches, one which isn't inherently associated with the province itself. It's also not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient city

This redirect is now in conflict with the article about the book "The Ancient City". I propose this redirect is removed and disambiguation is added to the article on the book. Nuclearelement (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Wikipedia:IBP

Call me out if it reflects poorly on me, but I cite WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE constantly. It would be nice if we could appropriate this shortcut, unless the present destination is more worthwhile than I presently understand it to be. I couldn't figure out a more natural shortcut either. Remsense ‥  11:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Gecko

"Back to" not mentioned at target page or at Gecko (software). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

Arbeitsamt

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Arbeitsamt

Murgh

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

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

Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "someone looking for a topic we don't cover on Wikipedia, would be WP:surprised if they ended up at a topic we cover on Wikipedia". That's not at all covered in the essay that you linked to, which states "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read." Nobody would be shocked when they search the word "murgh", and see the only place where the topic of "murgh" is directly defined and discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. in Afghan cuisine). It would be different if there was no Afghan mention either, but there is.
We go by what we have, not what we want to, but don't have. If the Indian cuisine target is so important, someone would have added something related to that topic, to Wikipedia, at any point in time for the last two decades, or during the course of the discussion. Or in the future! When something is added for this Indian cuisine content, the term can be disambiguated and new redirects can be created. (Unless there IS currently-existing content related to Indian Murgh, but nobody seems to be stating that to be true. I have not found any that discuss the Indian terminology, on Wikipedia.) Utopes (talk / cont) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except you yourself have already linked to articles that discuss individual indian murgh dishes, Butter chicken and chana masala (which is the target of murgh cholay). Add to that, Murgh musallam, and Tandoori chicken, which-- while there isn't currently a 'murgh' redirect to it, its own article and the article for Indian cuisine#Punjab describe it as such. Clearly, the individual dishes themselves are worthy of having their own articles that could be linked to in a disambuigation, so I am honestly personally shocked that Indian murgh itself HASN'T been discussed somewhere. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastratalk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas's 62th House of Representatives district

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Winnie-the-Pooh (TV series)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Olaf Priol

not in the notable side of anagrams. results gave me deviantart usernames and... frozen yaoi. why cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India women's national futsal team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#India women's national futsal team

Sonam Maskar

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellated

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Cancellated

kyle katarn

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Geoffrey Chalmers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Geoffrey Chalmers

Kerrek

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Uncle Cosmo

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Symbolism (arts)

October 17

Typhoon Katrina

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Turn Off the Lights extension

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nerubian

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Crazy doing a 4th relist for this, but ... there seems to not be consensus supporting the current status quo, and I don't see a WP:BARTENDER close fixing this since stances are all over the place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of Monster Hunter monsters

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sound stag

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Clash of Clans Town Hall 10

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List over Swedens Municipalities

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cackala

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9jeJbdVl2jI

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ebony Eyez

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Razah

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Grenada women's national under-17 football team

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Himanshi Gawande

Not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Narbonne (1017)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meenakshi Rohilla

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Redirect replaced with an article

Tighten

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

for the record, my vote will be to retarget to tight cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. My view has not changed since the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I acknowledge I was pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Vote" added at the (current) end of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eh? seems like the consensus was to retarget this time cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. You can't just ignore previous !votes when a discussion is relisted. Right now this is clearly "no consensus", probably leaning towards a WP:NCRET disambiguate closure. C F A 💬 14:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, way I see it, this is headed straight for a WP:BARTENDER close. We don't have a consensus on where to go, but the Keep and Merely Hatnote votes are a quite small minority compared to Disambiguate, Retarget, and Delete combined (in sum total, the "We Can't Stay Here" vote) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you know what? yeah, let's do all of those, at the same time. nothing is more evil than mildly confusing readers
for legal reasons, i do not actually endorse doing this, nor do i know how it would work cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a disambig page on another page, retarget to the disambig page, and then, after a day, delete both. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of swears

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Douvall

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Will (sociology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Will (sociology)

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)

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

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

April 4, 1974

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#April 4, 1974

June 23, 2016

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 16

Gamma squeeze

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger protest in Nigeria

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

🆓

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:VB

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should be discussed separately, as Template:Vb has quite a bit of transclusions. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obstipation

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of City 17

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Possible WP:Fancruft though technically not wrong TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind bundling The Battle of City 17 and Battle for City 17? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Airport

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a little late to comment on this relist, but nah, i think it was a clear-cut keep with at best not much prejudice to refining meowth. they're project redirects and all, so... cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned Suikoden characters

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

wouldn't the same logic that states that individual unnotable fire emblem character redirects (like matthew) should get deleted apply here? this seems a little too indiscriminate for me cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Bonita

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gypsy

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep most

Jamie Jungers

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Srishti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Srishti

Japetus

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Substituted

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Substituted

Β-aminoethylamine

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

Wikipedia:PCR

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Glenn Trumpkin

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Glenn Trumpkin, Amy Covid Barrett and But his laptop, Keep Leningrad Lindsey and Mthreegan.

Beta-ethylphenethylamine

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ra'ad 1

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

October 15

Vocational education and training centers

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose being kept at current target there are plenty of other topics using the term and I see no evidence this is the primary topic for the redirect [36] [37] [38]
Also @Lunamann that hatnote suggestion is a clear NPOV violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I mentioned that it might be a good idea to have a second pass on how to write it. Unless the NPOV violation is from merely having the hatnote in the first place, rather than the "...claim to be..." phrasing, in which case idk how to please you lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CBOT

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

gehn wie ein ägypter

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

Delete as per WP:RLANG. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect to the band, Die Ärzte? It got redirected to the article as a merge but I don't know if anything was actually merged. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not enough sourcage, probably. it's also not mentioned there, but in their discography cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapey McForehead

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

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

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

Is it really the most notable quote from the entire work? Genuinely excellent! This content could improve the encyclopedia. So there MUST be some way to verify this claim from a reliable source? If I were to type this in as a significant quote, for starters I would certainly want to read about the quote SPECIFICALLY, because that's exactly the search term I typed in, but such an article does not exist at this time. Therefore, we'd want to encourage readers to add material which we don't have, per WP:REDLINK. For a standalone article, a structure like Our princess is in another castle! could work? We've definitely done it before. But maybe this quote-topic can be covered on a different page, and not have to be standalone if the sources aren't up to par. If I had to pick a character to end up at, I would personally want to go to an article about "Dave" (because that is the name I purposely typed). I did not type in HAL 9000. If I wanted HAL 9000, I (and anyone who wanted to find HAL 9000) would've typed in "HAL 9000", which I deliberately be avoiding by typing in 9 words, none of which contain "HAL" and none of which contain "9000". The search term is, for all tenses and purposes, a totally separate topic. A quote. Not a character. And nothing exists for it on Wikipedia, it seems.
If this quote is so important as it is claimed here, it seems like it'd be a homerun out-of-the-park slam dunk to have SOMEthing, SOMEwhere, related to this quote. But, to the best of my understanding, we do not, anywhere. We didn't in January. We didn't in April. And nearly a year later, not in October either. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from the history, given that not even Lunamann wanted to save this in April, is that this quote must not be worthwhile! (Obviously this is not true, because the quote IS "important" and likely notable, possibly even reaching standalone notability! But Wikipedia is not trying to "right the wrongs" of a lack of coverage. We can only report on, and redirect based on the material that is contained here on Wikipedia. Not what we want it to contain. This is regardless if it's "important", but not mentioned yet.) The way to indicate that there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage to be filled, is a redlink. This redirect has zero valuable history. It can ALWAYS be recreated once someone feels it necessary to discuss this potentially notable quote on the biggest online encyclopedia. Which will certainly happen eventually, especially so if the "quote is synonymous with the target itself". But doesn't need to happen now. We are in WP:NORUSH to finish it. And in the meantime, people who search for a quote, and don't end up at material directly related to their search term, will certainly be misled, as Wikipedia is not, does not function as, or advertise as a "type in a quote and get the character who said it without any mention of the search term you used because it's not 'important' enough to be covered at the target page you ended up at" service. The content of the article dictates the redirects that should exist. Not the other way around. Recreate the redirect once a sourced mention is added, somewhere on Wikipedia, because there are none right now... besides one.
Alternatively, retarget to Love and Rocket where the quote is discussed, and HAL 9000 is readily linked. But my guess is that people would probably not want that. Welp. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers

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

Traditioanl Jewish law

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Vulkan-Hercules

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shanker jadapa

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Raffaella Aleotti (Q3929201)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Heavy is Dead

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

Delete as per WP:RETURNTORED. No info present in article; if someone has info on this they can make a page or section on it somewhere. Until that happens, we don't need this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Team Fortress 2#Fandom per Orchastrattor, who added the necessary, sourced information to the article that would be required to support this redirect. I am alive! Is nice. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this is stupid cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
kill per lunamann. no prejudice against reenacting heavy is dead here cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added to article, obviously noteworthy (sub)topic per WP:BEFORE Orchastrattor (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was also mentioned by Yahtzee Croshaw in his essay on punk and post-punk. I didn't even know this discussion was happening, I was just spinning the bit on Emesis Blue off into a new "fandom" section to mention Winglet's Fedora Chronicles ahead of "Mann's Final Stand". I was just looking to update the rcat templates for this redirect, Strong keep either way. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
works for me. refine to #fandom, still no prejudice against reenacting the video cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Crime Podcast

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

SHOUTcast Wire

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Firstly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Firstly

Once (adverb)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Linjian

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

American Mongoloid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#American Mongoloid

Indyans

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Indian lore

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Indian lore

North American people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#North American people

Контрудар: глобальное наступление

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

КСГО

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

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

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

"Steal Away."

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

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

Well, it would boil down to "where will readers receive the information most pertinent to their search term and have their questions be answered", and that is not the case at Bugs Bunny with zero mention. Yet the phrase "Ain't I a stinker" has like 6 mentions across Wikipedia, all of which might possibly be valid and could draw the target, but the fine details can be ascertained through this RfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Ain't I a stinker"

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diamondina

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

Ain't no party like a diddy party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Ain't no party like a diddy party

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

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

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [39], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."
Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [40]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

33-4

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=33-4&redirect=no
In America - Barely anyone recognizes it
In Japanese internet culture/Japan itself - Strong Yes
(Disclaimer - The "33-4" score was throughout the 4 different matches, not in a single match). The jawiki has a clear and good coverage of the internet meme associated with the series, but nobody in enwiki so far recognizes these kinds of stuff. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust a bartender with bad grammar

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

How many of us have them

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#How many of us have them

Kahako

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Kahako

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Real G's move in silence like lasagna

Billy Wilds

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Joe Tractorman

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The sun is a deadly lazer

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Quartzose

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 14

Worker

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move

Draft:Cimexa

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pizzaface

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

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

AN/ALQ-128

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#AN/ALQ-128

I am ..., Hear Me Roar!

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ting ting tang tang tang

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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

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

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

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

Luckily, "I get knocked down" IS mentioned, WITH a source, at Tubthumping! EZPZ! And is in the album cover too no less, woah! Therefore I get knocked down is substantiated, and I had zero intention of seeing it deleted. It's likely, and demonstrably so, with article content at the target page. Good song btw. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Motherland the German army march

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

External factors plant

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WRYYYYYYYYYYY

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The World (weapon)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#The World (weapon)

Wikipedia:Requests for creation

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

buccal organ(s)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#buccal organ(s)

T:WPMHA

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

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

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

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

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

Ryl

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

ps triple

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Open/Point No.1

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Online education

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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

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

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

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

retarget to online learning. in this case, i feel a dab would be more helpful, as it also includes all the suggested targets (and then some) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the above. This relist comment comes off as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Jay 💬 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Steel's insinuating that CycloneYoris specifying Online learning and Online school as the two targets worth talking about, comes across as having a stifling effect on the discussion that excludes the option Steel himself advocated for way up at the start of the discussion, which was Distance education
I'll also note that this is... not actually what a supervote is, given an actual supervote is a closing admin who forces a non-consensus close. Possible WP:UPPERCASE issue lol? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah.. got it. I guess it was the wording of the relist. CycloneYoris could have said two new suggestions have come up, or generically said there are multiple suggestions. Jay 💬 05:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. I somehow forgot to include the first suggestion in my relisting comment. Sorry about that! CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my first instinct is to retarget to Online learning. Learning and education are closer synonyms than online > distance and online > distance. However, it may be a better idea to retarget with hatnote to Distance education, with the following hatnote: "Online education" redirects here. For other uses, see Online learning. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26, November, 2006

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

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

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

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

I know you didn't explicitly cite WP:PANDORA, but "...would only justify creation of similar redirects" is pretty much entirely what a WP:PANDORA argument is-- so I'm going to direct you over to WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Tavix and Utopes. The Day/Month/Year formatting is completely plausible, and the only thing at issue is an extra comma-- which, one extra character added by accident shouldn't impact plausibility enough to delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer deletion, so I wouldn't say via of me. The formatting is totally fine, but because there is no mainspace coverage of this encyclopedic search term, going to a portal where there is no encyclopedic prose or editable material is unideal. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:PANDORA argument can be discarded, since it doesn't address the actual quality of the redirect (besides other issues discussed at WP:GETBACKINTHERE, which maybe should be moved to the WP namespace at this point). If I like the redirect, I could in theory say "keep per WP:PANDORA; it will encourage creation of more redirects of this type". That's essentially a WP:ILIKEIT argument; accordingly, WP:PANDORA amounts to a hidden WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
WP:COSTLY is also cited as a general reason for deletion, so I looked at that essay and its examples of unneeded redirects.
Numbers one through five don't apply to this redirect.
Number six is WP:PANDORA, which has already been discarded.
Number seven doesn't apply.
So I do not understand how deletion as costly redirect is correct here.
Regarding Utopes' argument, which seems to be that the portal is not mainspace and not very "encyclopedic"— I agree that it is not mainspace, but portals are still intended to be user-facing content. If portals exist as user-oriented content, and they certainly do, I don't see why it's not a valid target. Portals are exempted from WP:R2 and are not considered harmful cross-namespace redirects. Cremastra (u — c) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of WP:GETBACKINTHERE I am perfectly okay with moving it to WP namespace! I just haven't done so myself mostly because I'm not sure if I have the authority to lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what, after seeing User:Cremastra create WP:RDATE, I've decided to say screw it. I've moved WP:GETBACKINTHERE to WP namespace, and added three more shortcuts-- WP:GBIT, WP:BACKINBOX, and WP:UNPANDORA.
If I shouldn't be doing this please slap me with a fish. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spewed out a few of my thoughts at WP:RDATE. Cremastra (u — c) 20:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw as a clarification, @Cremastra:, where you say that I say "the portal is not mainspace and not very 'encyclopedic'". From my POV, scratch the very because it is not encyclopedic, period. It is functionally not a part of the encyclopedia and its corresponding set of articles (per the definition of a namespace and the content of WP:NAMESPACE). Even if "intended to be user-oriented content", it's not what people are after when searching Wikipedia (i.e. not randomly being surprise-redirected to non-encyclopedic namespaces). Portalspace is purely the Wikipedia community's concoction, and would never be printed into a real encyclopedia. The question becomes, whether we should take readers who type in a date to A: a valid encyclopedia article, if it exists, or B: The Wikipedia community's uneditable concoction. If someone types in Geography portal, there is no doubts in that person's mind that the user in question will be sent to a portal; the community's concoction, and that's exactly what they wanted when they typed in that term. But what about someone who types in January 3, 2003? There is no indication that this redirect goes to a portal the slightest, and most readers won't even know that a portal even exists! And that's a good thing. Because a portal is not being sought out, so it shouldn't be unfairly pushed on someone who never asked for it, especially so when mainspace content is delivered for mainspace searches for approximately 100% of mainspace redirects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit. It is not means of viewing uneditable user-facing content when typing in mainspace search terms. There is nothing to edit at the portal. If you want to redirect like so, try: January 3, 2003 portal. To differentiate from the mainspace date. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: There are quite a lot of things on our project that would never be printed into a real encyclopedia—including many redirects. If we imitated a real paper encyclopedia, we'd probably just have a few pages saying "see x".
Our goal is present information to our readers. Redirects help readers get to the information they want. I see no reason why readers would be disappointed to end up at portal when it gives them the information they searched for! You characterize the current events portal as the Wikipedia community's uneditable collaborative concoction. This entire project is a collaborative concoction. Also, I don't know why you're deriding portals as "uneditable". Do you mean there's a technical restriction (there isn't), or something else?
Anyways, current events portals aren't like other portals. It would be of course ludicrous to redirect, say, Plant to Portal:Plants. Portals, except for the current events portal, act as "main pages" for topics and don't cover anything that isn't dealt with in a mainspace article.
The current events portal, on the other hand, is basically a short list article about Stuff That Happened On This Day. That's useful to the reader. They shouldn't be discriminated against because they have "Portal:" in their name. We should help the reader, regardless of namespace.
I'll continue the museum analogy employed at WP:XNR. Mainspace is the main "gallery". There are maintenance, technical, and administrative offices in the basement. There's an annex where new exihibits are started and improved. There's also a small additional wing that's open to the public that gets a bit less attention, but is still useful. These annex galleries supplement the encyclopedia (—WP:P), and they're called portals. There's a big section in this annex gallery that has logs – newspaper clippings and whatnot – of stuff that happened on each day for almost 20 years. This collection is maintained and added to by a special department of the museum administration.
A visitor comes to the museum, maybe to do some research, probably just browsing (the museum is free, so lots of people drop in.) They ask at the front desk for information about what happened on the 26th of November, 2006.
Now there are two things that could happen here. Following "the redirect is deleted", the person at the front desk directing people to different galleries says “I'm sorry, we don't have that information.” The visitor leaves. They'll probably come back, but they're still slightly annoyed, because the museum couldn't help them.
In the alternate reality, the person at the front desk (the redirector) says, “yes, we can help you.” And they give directions into the portal gallery. The visitor finds the information they want, and is pleased.
Why would we want to operate in the first reality? Deleting the redirect is effectively lying to readers, saying: no, we don't have that information. When really, we do, and we could help them. Why would we want to mislead readers and deliberately hide information from them?
Now for my potential compromise. I'll stop blathering on about museums and just ask: how about a soft redirect? That would a) lead the reader to the information, but also b) not "drop them" into portal namespace unawares, thus dealing with your concern. Is that an acceptable compromise for this redirect? Cremastra (u — c) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Presidential Board

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 13

Tata (Persian King)

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

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Chrysolith

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grandview (typeface) and others

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bumping trains

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep.

Catcher's mitt

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Mick Armstrong

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore and take to AfD

Ronnie Cowan (rugy union)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3.1415926535…

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#3.1415926535…

Sidepiece (DJs)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 12

National Sports Administration

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Erie Von Detten

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

Bot policy

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Image use

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

No original research

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

Deletion policy

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

Banning policy

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

I agree that "banning policy" is not restricted to the internet. Delete as too vague; we don't have a broad-topic article on banning. My second preference is to retarget to Ban. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

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

Username policy

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

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

Days

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Scottish Nose-pickers

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

2032 Copa América

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

JD "the Couch" Vance

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Couch sex

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Having sex with couch

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

K'gari (local council), Queensland

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

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


October 11

Allan Cerda

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

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

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

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

Fântânele River (Mureș)

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

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

Misbehaviour

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

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

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

Melonade

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

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

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

Independence of Path

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Unmentioned Suikoden characters (2)

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

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

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

Surnames from the name Leib

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pita Revilla

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

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

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

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

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

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"
However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?
I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research impact

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

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

Legendary beast

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Fendlerella utahensis

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 Women's Finalissima

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2026 Futsal Finalissima

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

DC Super Hero Girls (disambiguation)

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

The [console]: round 2: the revengening

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PS3 Media

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The [console]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep/retarget

PSX2

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PlayStation Dos

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 10

Soft D

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

Category:University of Maryland alumni

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

No relation

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-duction

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

List of characters in Suikoden

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tellurane

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cincinnati Bengals (AFL)

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Carrotion

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Symbolism (arts)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Symbolism (arts)

It's never lupus

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

!(*$

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lightlike separation

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

Spacelike vector

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Spacelike vector

Missoes

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

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

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

John Atoms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#John Atoms

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/

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

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Usurper King

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Usurper King

S-compact space

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#S-compact space

Tebasaki

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Murgh

John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alpha-chlornaltrexamine

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:JDELANOY

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disaster recovery

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate


October 9

Lists of Pokémon

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tenorite (typeface)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 22#Tenorite (typeface)

Joker persona

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:William Cilium

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

4C Untitled Flatiron Nonfiction Summer 2023

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

Next king of Denmark

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ingrid I of Norway

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Next king of Norway

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Haakon VIII Magnus

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

🆓

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

Cody, WY μSA

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn.

Third Lebanon War

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hunger protest in Nigeria

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Hunger protest in Nigeria

Uncle Cosmo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Uncle Cosmo

Redirects to Regnery Publishing

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Will (sociology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Will (sociology)

Boston Stadium

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Toronto Stadium

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Dallas Stadium

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

PVTTIMHALL

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

Gamma squeeze

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

Quran Afghanistan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Quran Afghanistan

Isometry (mathematics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Isometry (mathematics)

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

N3rd

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#N3rd

Yonama dialect

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Le métro de Tony Hawk

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ß-carotin

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Srishti

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

Jamie Jungers

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

Mindy Lawton

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Grood

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kerrek

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 18#Kerrek

Asplode

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

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

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

KGVC (FM)

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

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

North Takoma

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Methodist High School

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Universal Studios

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

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

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

MrBro

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diffusion semigroup

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Year of Science

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

John Alston

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore


October 8

The Red Palace

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2024 Cornell

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

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

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [49]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Predictions of the end of Facebook

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

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

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

Kid Speedy

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Highlights

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Engineering

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

First Americans

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: 2 keep, 2 retarget

Japanese opera

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Japanese opera

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

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

All-Star Batman

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Shady Sheehy

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

Pokémon Fushigi no Dungeon Red (plus that other one)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alicia Douvall

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Alicia Douvall

Democracy Index

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Democracy Index

Tighten

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Tighten

Naoki Tanisaki

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Naoki Tanisaki

List of swears

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#List of swears

Ansem

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#Ansem

Häxans förbannelser

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Towel Trick

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3RL

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:VB

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

Rabila railway station

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Obstipation

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

Alison Chabloz

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cards Against Disney

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enigmatic Man

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mr. Bland

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Affine cone

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Rio Este (desambiguacion)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gedko Powało

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Vocational education and training centers

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

King Roland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23#King Roland

Shiro sAGISU

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shamrock Airport

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16#Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Template:Lang1

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banana Guard

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banapassport

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Billy Rowan

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Charlotte Bishop

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Decco Bishop

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Decco Bishop

BlockParty (game portal)

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Boussh

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burin en-bec-de-flute

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

January 1, 2003

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep