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.

Si desea reemplazar una redirección desprotegida con un artículo, no lo incluya aquí. Se recomienda encarecidamente convertir las redirecciones en artículos. ¡ Sea valiente !
Si desea mover una página pero hay una redirección que lo impide, no la incluya aquí. En casos que no generen controversias, presente una solicitud técnica ; si se requiere una discusión, inicie un movimiento solicitado .
Si cree que una redirección apunta al artículo de destino incorrecto, este es un buen lugar para analizar el destino adecuado.
No se deben eliminar las redirecciones solo porque no tienen enlaces entrantes. No utilice este motivo como única razón para eliminar una redirección. Sin embargo, las redirecciones que sí tienen enlaces entrantes a veces se eliminan, por lo que no es una condición suficiente para conservarlas. (Consulte § ¿Cuándo debemos eliminar una redirección? para obtener más información).

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:

Wikipedia:Redireccionamiento : qué son los redireccionamientos, por qué existen y cómo se utilizan.
Wikipedia: Criterios para una eliminación rápida : qué páginas pueden eliminarse sin discusión; en particular las secciones " General " y " Redirecciones ".
Wikipedia:Política de eliminación : cómo eliminamos cosas por consenso.
Wikipedia:Guía para la eliminación : pautas sobre el formato de discusión y abreviaturas.

Los principios rectores de la RfD

Atajo

Guía WP:R

El objetivo de una buena redirección es eliminar la posibilidad de que los lectores se queden mirando fijamente "Resultados de búsqueda 1 a 10 de 378" en lugar del artículo que estaban buscando. Si alguien pudiera introducir de forma plausible el nombre de la redirección al buscar el artículo de destino, se trata de una buena redirección.
Las redirecciones son económicas . Ocupan poco espacio de almacenamiento y utilizan muy poco ancho de banda. No es perjudicial si hay algunas de ellas dispersas por todas partes. Por otro lado, eliminar las redirecciones también es económico porque registrar la eliminación ocupa poco espacio de almacenamiento y utiliza muy poco ancho de banda. No hay ningún problema en eliminar las redirecciones problemáticas.
Si una nominación de RfD de buena fe propone eliminar una redirección y no hay discusión después de al menos 7 días, el resultado predeterminado es eliminar .
Las redirecciones nominadas en contravención de Wikipedia: la redirección se mantendrá rápidamente .
RfD también puede servir como un foro de discusión central para debatir sobre a qué página debe dirigirse un redireccionamiento. En los casos en que la reorientación del redireccionamiento pueda considerarse controvertida, es recomendable dejar un aviso en la página de discusión de la página de destino actual del redireccionamiento o de la página de destino propuesta para remitir a los lectores a la propuesta del redireccionamiento y permitir la participación y ayudar a formar un consenso sobre el destino del redireccionamiento.
No es necesario incluir aquí las solicitudes de eliminación de redirecciones desde la página de discusión de una página a la de otra. Cualquiera puede eliminar la redirección borrando la página. El criterio G6 para la eliminación rápida puede ser adecuado.
En las discusiones, pregúntese siempre si una redirección sería útil o no para el lector.

¿Cuándo debemos eliminar una redirección?

Atajos

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

Atajo

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 ):

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.
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.
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.
La redirección constituye autopromoción o spam. ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G11 ).
La redirección no tiene sentido, por ejemplo, redirigir "Apple" a "Orange". ( Puede aplicarse el criterio de eliminación rápida G1 ).
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: ).
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.
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).
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 .
Atajo
- 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

Atajo

WP:RFD#MANTENER

Sin embargo, evite eliminar dichas redirecciones si:

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.
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.
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).
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 .
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.
La redirección se realiza a una forma de palabra estrechamente relacionada, como una forma plural a una forma singular .

Neutralidad de las redirecciones

Atajo

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:

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, Climategate → Controversia por correo electrónico de la Unidad de Investigación Climática ).
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 ).
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

Atajo

WP:RFDCOMO

Considere utilizar la opción ¿Qué enlaces hay aquí? para localizar otras redirecciones que puedan estar relacionadas con la que está nominando. Después de ir a la página de destino de la redirección y seleccionar "Qué enlaces hay aquí" en la caja de herramientas del lado izquierdo de la pantalla de su computadora, seleccione los filtros "Ocultar inclusiones" y "Ocultar enlaces" para mostrar las redirecciones a la página de destino de la redirección.

Lista actual

Atajos

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

18 de octubre

Olaf Priol

Olaf Priol → Día de los inocentes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No en el lado notable de los anagramas. Los resultados me dieron nombres de usuario de DeviantArt y... yaoi congelado . ¿Por qué Cogsan _{(me regaña) (me acecha)?} 14:42, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sala de la India

Selección femenina de fútbol sala de la India → Selección femenina de fútbol sala de la India (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Redirigir a la Asociación de Futsal de la India : parece más adecuado. Vestrian24Bio ( DISCURSO ) 15:17 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Máscara Sonam

Sonam Maskar → Deportes de tiro en la India (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 13:55, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Interrumpido

Cancelado → Hueso (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

"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 ]

Kyle Katarn

Kyle Katarn → Lista de personajes de Star Wars Legends ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kyle Katarn → Star Wars: Dark Forces (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

diferentes objetivos. Estaba a punto de volver a apuntar a la lista de personajes, en lugar de a las fuerzas oscuras, pero esa entrada está bastante poco elaborada. ¿Opiniones sobre qué objetivo sería mejor? cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 12:34, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Por cierto, el primero tiene una historia cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 12:41, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Geoffrey Chalmers

Geoffrey Chalmers → Michael McConnohie ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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:

Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/25 de enero de 2021 § Geoffrey Chalmers – Mantener

Comentario El RfD anterior señaló que el McConnohie fue acreditado como Geoffrey Chalmers y que esto se mencionó en el artículo. Un editor de IP ocultó la mención en junio de 2021 con el comentario "Ocultaré esta fuente hasta que se verifique". La información se obtuvo de [1] pero la versión actual de esa página no incluye el nombre (no he investigado si alguna vez lo hizo). Al buscar en Google "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers"se encuentran muchos resultados que hacen la misma conexión, pero todos los sitios no son confiables (IMDB, wikis) o no tengo idea de su confiabilidad. Esto necesita la atención de alguien familiarizado con las fuentes en esta área temática. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:53, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

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 ]

Comentario He dejado una nota en Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers solicitando aportaciones. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:27 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar si no hay una fuente confiable. Se puede volver a crear cuando la fuente esté disponible. Jay 💬 15:54, 14 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 ]

Kerrek

Kerrek → Homestar Runner (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo. Existe The Carracks , así como múltiples menciones en la campaña uno de Critical Role . 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:48, 26 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a The Carracks , ya que es una página dedicada con una traducción legítima que ya está en negrita para satisfacer MOS:BOLDREDIRECT . El enlace a un personaje de Critical Role se podría hacer por separado si realmente quisiéramos a Kerrek (Critical Role), pero no lo recomiendo. No hay redirecciones de personajes entrantes en la campaña o la lista de personajes, por lo que no parece necesario. -2pou ( discusión ) 18:33, 8 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,Significa liberdade (ella/ella) (discusión) 01:08 9 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) 03:51 18 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Tío Cosmo

Tío Cosmo → Columbo (personaje) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Todavía no soy el Columbohead más grande que existe, pero después de un par de días de buscar, no encontré ninguna relación entre este nombre y Columbo (o Columbo). ¿Es algo de episodios posteriores que simplemente no se ha mencionado en ningún lado todavía, o...? cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 17:46, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgase . Tío Cosmo era un apodo que se usaba a veces, como lo indica correctamente la plantilla "R de apodo" que se usa en la redirección. Por favor, haga su tarea antes de hacer nominaciones, porque esto destruye fácilmente una infraestructura cuidadosamente creada y cuesta tiempo que se podría invertir mejor en mejorar o agregar contenido. -- Matthiaspaul ( discusión ) 17:03 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . Esto podría haberse detectado simplemente conectándolo "Uncle Cosmo" Columboa Google. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 18:34 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ya lo hice antes y obtuve un resultado que decía que lo usó su sobrino en un episodio ( episodio 60 , para ser específico), y nunca más lo usó nadie más, y ese resultado estaba en la página 2 de 2, en un sitio con forma de espejo de Wikipedia sospechosamente antiguo, sin fuentes, mencionado de pasada y enterrado entre tíos no relacionados llamados Cosmo, aparentemente relacionados con personas aparentemente conocidas como "Colombo". Mirando de nuevo, es el mismo caso, pero ahora también hay informes de algo llamado "Cogsan", iniciado por alguien llamado "RFD". No tengo idea de quién es, pero parece que sería un completo tonto.
Me retiraría en base a esto, pero el hecho de que no haya fuentes, confiables o no (Google me dijo que había algo en Quora , pero no lo encontré allí) que siquiera insinúen algo sobre la existencia de este (apodo) además de esta diferencia que otro sitio parece haber cogido por accidente, mientras que "Frank" y "Philip" tienen una cita cada uno (sí, sé que esto último es falso), me lleva a cuestionar si vale la pena mantenerlo, ya que la única mención que encontré fuera de Fancruft en el historial de edición del objetivo todavía era circular
Si ustedes dos encontraron algo que yo no encontré, se lo agradecería cogsan _{(regáme) (acechame)} 20:04, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hm. Comprobándolo por mí mismo, tienes razón. Al principio vi que el primer resultado era Quora y pensé: "Está bien, esta es una respuesta conocida". En realidad, no lo era. Vaya. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:49 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Claramente su primer nombre es "teniente" cogsan _{(regáme) (acechame)} 16:44 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:¿Alguien más pudo encontrar alguna señal de esto en algún lugar?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,asilvering(discusión) 03:44 18 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Redireccionar a Ronnie Nyakale No creo que una respuesta de Quora sea suficiente para proporcionar evidencia de este apodo, especialmente cuando no se menciona en el objetivo. Tampoco pude encontrar otras fuentes. Por otra parte, "Uncle Cosmo" aparece como un nombre alternativo para Nyakale en su cuadro de información. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 13:37, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Simbolismo (artes)

Simbolismo (artes) → Simbolismo (movimiento) ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Simbolismo (arte) → Simbolismo (movimiento) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Simbolismo en el arte → Simbolismo (movimiento) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Eliminar Como una desambiguación incorrecta de hacia dónde apunta actualmente. Para que conste, estoy de acuerdo con la medida (aunque creo que (movimiento artístico) hubiera sido una desambiguación superior para evitar la confusión con Movimiento (música) ) y creo que el concepto de simbolismo dentro del arte es notable, pero debería estar en el simbolismo artístico. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:34, 5 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar todo a Symbol por nombre. Fieari ( discusión ) 23:46 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantén todo o crea un disam. (luego) Simplemente elimina, según Ham. Redirigen todo al nuevo símbolo artístico . El símbolo no será de ninguna utilidad para la gran mayoría de lectores: todo se trata de semiótica y símbolos de mapas. Sí, sería bueno tener simbolismo artístico, pero parece que no lo tenemos (todavía). Mientras tanto, esto será lo que muchos lectores están buscando. Johnbod ( discusión ) 01:16 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar . El simbolismo ya es una página de desambiguación y, aunque se podrían redirigir allí, no veo qué se lograría con eso. La página dab y estas redirecciones comienzan con la misma palabra, por lo que las redirecciones no ayudarían a nadie que escribiera "simbolismo"/"Simbolismo" en la barra de búsqueda a encontrar el significado específico del término que está buscando (a diferencia, por ejemplo, si tuviéramos ese artículo Simbolismo artístico, con Simbolismo en el arte redirigiendo a él). La redirección Simbolismo (artes) solo existe porque era el título anterior del artículo Simbolismo (movimiento) , y ese título anterior era demasiado ambiguo para ser de alguna ayuda; podría referirse a cualquiera de los significados indicados en la nominación. Ham II ( discusión ) 09:42 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ahora que se ha creado el símbolo artístico , sigo pensando que se deberían eliminar los términos Simbolismo (artes) y Simbolismo (arte), ya que son demasiado ambiguos. Simbolismo en el arte , por el contrario, es otra forma de decir "simbolismo artístico" y en realidad no se usaría para referirse al movimiento del siglo XIX, por lo que debería redirigirnos al nuevo artículo. Ham II ( discusión ) 11:00 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nota del nominador : He tenido en cuenta la idea de que otros y yo mismo hemos pensado que quizás Wikipedia simplemente carece de un artículo sobre símbolos/simbolismo artístico, por lo que he empezado como un esbozo aquí . Agradezco la discusión en curso. Wolfdog ( discusión ) 17:42 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir los tres al símbolo artístico recién creado , que ya tiene una nota al pie sobre el simbolismo (movimiento) . No veo ninguna razón para eliminar ninguno de ellos. A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:14 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

17 de octubre

Tifón Katrina

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: mantener

Apagar la extensión de luces

Apagar la extensión de luces → Google Chrome#Extensiones (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Extensión del navegador que no se menciona en la página de destino. Anteriormente se hizo referencia a una página sobre la extensión que fue eliminada en AfD, por lo que no quedó contenido sobre esto en Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (discusión) 23:27 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar por nombre. *Pppery* _{ya empezó...} 04:10 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar - No tenemos información sobre este tema. Fieari ( discusión ) 07:40 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Nerubiano

Nerubian → Jugabilidad de World of Warcraft (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo. Se menciona una vez de pasada en Mummy (undead) y en World of Warcraft: The War Within , pero ninguno de ellos tiene suficiente sustancia como para respaldar una redirección. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 15:08, 26 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : Probablemente se podría agregar a la lista de artrópodos ficticios si existen fuentes razonables. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}_{) 04:58, 27 de} agosto 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,Hola, soy Josh(discusión) 14:35, 4 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Vuelve a publicarse para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Agrega nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias,Hola, soy Josh(discusión) 19:39, 12 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Borrar lo no mencionado en el objetivo. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 04:22 20 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se mencionó en Razas y facciones de Warcraft , antes del cierre de Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Razas y facciones de Warcraft , y una edición del 15 de julio de 2020 " Comienza una purga de fancruft/gamecruft: razas principalmente sin fuentes o irrelevantes/no notables. No todas las criaturas son importantes ". – wbm1058 ( discusión ) 16:02, 21 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientación a World of Warcraft: The War Within . Creo que ... un ejército de nerubianos, una antigua raza de arañas humanoides que se creía casi extinta y que comienza a secuestrar a numerosos civiles... es suficiente para establecer lo que son. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 01:05 22 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es mejor que cualquier otro objetivo propuesto hasta ahora, pero todavía siento que da la conclusión errónea de que los nerubianos son exclusivos de The War Within cuando, de hecho, han existido desde al menos Warcraft III. * Pppery * _{ha comenzado...} 04:10, 18 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:surgieron más opciones después de la segunda publicación.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 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:Es una locura hacer una cuarta publicación para esto, pero... parece que no hay consenso que respalde el status quo actual, y no veo que unWP:BARTENDERarregle esto ya que las posturas están por todos lados.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Steel1943 (discusión) 18:57, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Banda sonora para la gira mundial de Guitar Hero

Soundtack para Guitar Hero World Tour → Lista de canciones de Guitar Hero World Tour (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Este es el último de los redireccionamientos de "banda sonora" con errores ortográficos cuestionables y plausibles que enumeraré aquí por ahora. Este artículo solía ser un esbozo sobre la banda sonora (cuya versión inicial se puede encontrar aquí) durante siete minutos el 28 de julio de 2008 hasta que se convirtió en un redireccionamiento a la sección relevante del artículo del juego, luego, aproximadamente un mes y medio después, se llevó al objetivo actual. Tampoco ha recibido muchas visitas en la página en la actualidad, por lo que no estoy seguro de que debamos mantenerlo por ahí. Saludos, SONIC 678 06:18, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No se aplica la metáfora de " dejarlo tirado por ahí". Si no hubieras planteado este TfD, este TfD no habría tenido visitas, ni votos, ni habría ocupado espacio en disco. Es mucho más barato dejar las cosas así que tener una discusión sobre ellas. Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 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:¿Mantener o eliminar?
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:59, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Manténgalo. Según WP:CHEAP y Rich Farmbrough; salvo por la falta de mayúsculas (que no es necesariamente un error, dado que esta redirección también recogería solicitudes de "Soundtack para Guitar Hero World Tour"), esta redirección tiene solo un error, que es que a la palabra "soundtrack" le falta una letra. Realmente no tenemos que preocuparnos por esto. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 12:56, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgase al día con Rich y Lunamann (¡bienvenido de nuevo, LM!) : una redirección solo debería eliminarse (en mi opinión) si apunta al lugar equivocado o si hace daño de alguna manera; el hecho de que sea un poco poco convencional o impopular no es suficiente justificación para eliminar una redirección, ya que son baratas y podrían ayudar a alguien. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:44, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias, gracias, he estado ausente demasiado tiempo :3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 18:35 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar , la banda sonora no es difícil de deletrear, y esos 7 minutos de fragmentos sin fuente nunca debieron haber existido. Probablemente sean lo suficientemente menores como para no necesitar ser nominados en RfD, pero si estamos aquí, estamos aquí; esta no es una redirección necesaria y mantiene la idea de que "está bien duplicar el contenido del tema en lugares mal escritos y mantenerlo para siempre". Sonic678 honestamente, probablemente deberías haber movido esta redirección a un título mejor en mi opinión; mantiene el historial (ciertamente dudoso), corrige el error tipográfico y nos ahorra tener que hablar de esto aquí. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 15:46, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entendido. Me encargaré de eso. Saludos, SONIC 678 21:17, 14 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:publicación de procedimiento, dado que la redirección a este título no se etiquetó para RFD durante aproximadamente 3 días después de que su historial de edición se movió aSoundtrack for Guitar Hero World Tour. Sin embargo, dado que esta discusión ya se volvió a publicar en el pasado y el movimiento ocurrió después de la publicación anterior, esta discusión se puede cerrar en cualquier momento segúnWP:RELIST.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Steel1943 (discusión) 18:31, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Lista de monstruos de Monster Hunter

Lista de monstruos de Monster Hunter → Monster Hunter (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

no existe tal lista. originalmente fue borrada y fusionada (¿por qué no llamamos a eso blams?) en monster hunter (videojuego) después de una discusión no muy larga , eliminada un par de diferencias después, y las adiciones a las listas en los artículos de los juegos se han encontrado con eliminaciones desde entonces cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:20, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar por nombre. *Pppery* _{ya empezó...} 04:10 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Parece que se creó como parte de una división de Monster Hunter (videojuego) (ver [2], luego se agregó [3]), por lo que no hay preocupaciones sobre la conservación del contenido del artículo. Dado que la sección relevante no existe en ese artículo o en el destino actual, elimine . A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:30, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sonido del ciervo

Escenario de sonido → Escenario de sonido (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Redirección no utilizada debido a un error ortográfico cuestionable. Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:00 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

eliminar per no cogsan _{(regañarme) (acecharme)} 18:21, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Borra este error. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 12:26 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

R v R (Violación: exención marital)

R v R (Violación: exención marital) → R v R (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Redirección redundante debido a la existencia de R v R. Anteriormente redirigida a Marital_rape#Ending_the_exemption pero yo diría que todavía no es necesaria ya que el caso confirmó el fin de cualquier exención. ¡ La Iglesia de Inglaterra, Dios salve al Rey! ( discusión ) 10:14 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

- Técnicamente, también bajo los términos de WP:G14 . ¡Dios salve al rey, Iglesia de Inglaterra ! ( discusión ) 18:12 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo como una {{ R de desambiguación innecesaria }} perfectamente inofensiva . "Redundante" no es una razón para eliminar una redirección. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 16:07 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener - Objetivo inequívoco. WP:G14 no se aplica objetivamente, ya que solo se aplica a páginas de desambiguación (es decir, páginas que enumeran otras páginas con las que se podría confundir un término de búsqueda) que contienen solo un artículo o ningún artículo. Esta no es una página de desambiguación, es un desambiguador redundante, un término técnico en Wikipedia con un significado completamente distinto. Fieari ( discusión ) 23:39 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar - Esta es una desambiguación mal formateada (es decir, '( X : x )' no es un método que usemos para desambiguar páginas). Si fuera necesaria una desambiguación, entonces hay muchas maneras de hacerlo; sin embargo, esta no es una de ellas. Si fuera una desambiguación innecesaria con el formato correcto, entonces no me opondría a su conservación. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}_{CONT )} 21:16, 11 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar : formato incorrecto y desambiguación innecesaria para este objetivo. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 12:59 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener la parte entre paréntesis no es un desambiguador de Wikipedia, sino una forma real de citar casos, con cientos de resultados en Google Book [4] 59.149.117.119 ( discusión ) 11:40, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- En ese caso, sería una {{ r de nombre alternativo }} . '(Rape: Martial Exemption)' parece ser, con diferencia, el más común, seguido de y '(rape: marital exception)'. Si se mantiene (y suponiendo que no sea ambiguo), un _cambio sin redirección a la primera puede ser una opción que aborde de algún modo todas las preocupaciones. — Godsy^{( CONVERSACIÓN}₎ 21:51, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Aquí se utiliza, de forma inapropiada, como desambiguador de Wikipedia. En Wikipedia, R v R no es ambiguo. Siéntete libre de crear Violación: exención marital, pero su uso aquí no se ajusta al estilo de Wikipedia. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 12:36 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  - El hecho de que esté entre paréntesis no significa que sea un desambiguador de Wikipedia. [5] y [6], por ejemplo, utilizan este formato exacto de forma totalmente independiente de Wikipedia. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 12:50 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario : si esto es válido, debería mencionarse. En el vacío, "Violación: exención material" es un desambiguador improbable, antinatural e inverosímil. Sin embargo, se ha puesto en duda que esto sea más que un desambiguador y que sea un posible subtítulo para esta decisión, o algún derivado. Una mención en el tema debería explicar esta situación. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 00:54 16 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,NotAGenious(discusión) 15:54 17 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Mantener Las fuentes proporcionadas por el anónimo muestran que este es un nombre alternativo válido para el tema. Estoy de acuerdo con Utopes en que se debe agregar una mención. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 17:39, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece más convincente el argumento de mantener aquí. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 04:10, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener . Las fuentes presentadas anteriormente muestran que esta cadena exacta se utiliza en múltiples fuentes independientes, por lo que es un término de búsqueda útil. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 12:50, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ayuntamiento de Clash of Clans 10

Ayuntamiento de Clash of Clans 10 → Clash of Clans#Edificios (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No creo que necesitemos redirecciones para un nivel particular de una estructura construible particular en un juego. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 14:48, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar - Esta página se convirtió en una redirección después de que se creó como un esbozo no notable. Hay varias wikis externas para este juego y no hay ninguna razón para que deba cubrirse con tanta granularidad en Wikipedia. Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:05, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar No https://clashofclans.fandom.com *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 04:10, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de municipios de Suecia

Lista de municipios de Suecia → Lista de municipios de Suecia (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Eliminar . Inverosímil variante de ensalada de palabras del título con errores tipográficos, orden de palabras extraño y mayúsculas extrañas. Totalmente inverosímil) -1ctinus📝 🗨 13:59, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Dejando de lado el uso de dos formas distintas de escribir "implausible", elimínenlo . Son al menos cuatro errores distintos (aunque no creo que la capitalización sea una de ellas) cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 14:24, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar . El orden de las palabras está bien: "Lista de municipios de Suecia" está perfectamente bien escrito en inglés, mientras que la capitalización no es ideal. Recomendaría mantenerlo si ese fuera el único problema. Sin embargo, la combinación de "over" en lugar de "of" y "Swedens" en lugar de "Sweden's" significa que esto no es útil. Esto se creó como una lista, pero si se restaura, se podría eliminar rápidamente como un duplicado (A10) del artículo, por lo que no hay problema en eliminarlo aquí. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 15:22, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar : esta es una traducción no fluida del título sueco, sv:Lista över Sveriges kommuner. Su uso en la Wikipedia en inglés es inverosímil. Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:09 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Cackala

Cackala → Kamala Harris (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

@Hyphenation Expert: nominé esto para R3 porque WP:RNEUTRAL: no está "en múltiples RS de la corriente principal" . Lo he rechazado. El término está atestiguado en Internet (cfeg https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ y https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ) , lo que creo que hace que sea perfectamente razonable que alguien escriba en la barra de búsqueda, incluso si no espera un artículo completo sobre esta palabra. Duckmather ( discusión ) 13:54 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar : se trata de información polémica sobre una persona viva; si no es lo suficientemente notable como para ser descrita en Wikipedia con una cita en línea de una fuente confiable, la redirección es WP:G10 . Ivanvector ( ^Discusión / _Ediciones ) 14:01 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borra ese apodo infantil y tonto que dudo mucho que llegue a ser un término de búsqueda. Slatersteven ( discusión ) 14:03 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por WP:RNEUTRAL : no "en múltiples RS de la corriente principal" . El artículo de National Review no dice "Cackala"; es un comentario en la sección de comentarios ( de todos modos, WP:NATIONALREVIEW no es confiable en cuanto a "ningún consenso"). Moonbattery es un blog de WordPress. Experto en la división de palabras ( discusión ) 14:18, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
( editar conflicto ) Mantener Muy utilizado hasta el punto de que es plausible que alguien lo vea fuera de contexto y busque información sobre a quién se refiere. Los apodos "infantiles" definitivamente no son material para G10. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 14:19 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación rápida según WP:G10 . Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:12 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario . Thryduulf , tu rechazo de la nominación de eliminación rápida y luego también tu voto aquí es una acción inapropiada de WP:INVOLVED . Por favor, revierte una de ellas. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 19:36, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo en que esto haya sido inapropiado y ninguna de las dos acciones se realizó en mi calidad de administrador. Cualquiera puede impugnar una nominación de eliminación rápida (excepto el creador, en algunas circunstancias) y ya se estaba discutiendo aquí. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 19:48, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
100% no WP:INVOLVED . Todas las solicitudes de eliminación rápida (excepto las acciones de la oficina y las violaciones de derechos de autor ) se rechazan si algún usuario se opone, y como ya hay una discusión de eliminación no unánime en curso (esta discusión), el artículo no es elegible para G10 y cualquier administrador que actúe de manera responsable debería haber rechazado la solicitud. La política de responsabilidad se ocupa específicamente de las acciones del administrador, no de todas las cosas que un administrador puede hacer; algunos opinan que rechazar una solicitud de eliminación rápida es una acción del administrador independientemente del hecho de que cualquier usuario puede rechazarla, pero !votar en una encuesta informal definitivamente no es una acción del administrador. Ivanvector ( ^Discusión / _Ediciones ) 15:26 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

9jeJbdVl2jI

9jeJbdVl2jI → Minecraft Multiplayer Fun (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Este es el ID de YouTube del video del que trata la página de destino. Me gustaría retirarlo si hay precedentes. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:31 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario . El precedente es la eliminación. Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/13 de octubre de 2019#DQw4w9WgXcQ → Rickrolling y Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/18 de noviembre de 2019#JNQXAC9IVRw → Yo en el zoológico ambos cerrados como eliminados, el último (cerrado por el usuario:Deryck Chan ) con el resumen El consenso aproximado está a favor de no permitir redirecciones desde los ID de YouTube en general. . Sin embargo, vale la pena señalar que no estamos sujetos a precedentes y ambas discusiones tuvieron que volver a publicarse antes de que se encontrara un consenso. Dicho esto, si tuviera que adivinar los ID que es más probable que se usen como términos de búsqueda, serían esos dos. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:53, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Nota al margen: probablemente se pueda añadir una mención de "DQw4w9WgXcQ" a Rickrolling, cuya fuente son Baudry, Benoit; Monperrus, Martin (2022). "Estudio exhaustivo de Rickrolling en la literatura académica". arXiv : 2204.06826 .(preimpresión, pero aparentemente revisada por pares para [7]), y se recreó la redirección. -- Tamzin^{[ se necesita cetáceo ]} ( they|xe ) 21:12, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar según un simple WP:NCT basado en los hallazgos de Thryduulf. Si el ID de Youtube de XcQ > Rickrolling no está permitido, entonces no veo por qué debería permitirse esta redirección; probablemente se calificarían por los mismos méritos y, en esa escala, Rickrolling (y Me At The Zoo) definitivamente serían más notables, por un factor de magnitud, en comparación con Minecraft Multiplayer Fun.
Notaré que si NCT está prohibido según WP:OTHERSTUFF , lo cual, completamente justo, me gustaría hacer eco de los argumentos utilizados contra esas dos redirecciones. Notaré, sin embargo, que XcQ es literalmente el único ID de YouTube que he escuchado de alguien que intenta memorizar, y es total y específicamente para evitar ser engañado. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 14:27, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borra este, pero como nota al margen, probablemente se debería volver a crear la redirección DQw4w9WgXcQ. Creo que la ID en sí misma ha ganado especial atención y notoriedad, y parece que un artículo revisado por pares lo confirma. No TODAS las ID de YouTube deberían ser una redirección al video en cuestión, pero Rickrolling probablemente debería ser una excepción. Fieari ( discusión ) 07:45 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ojos de ébano

Ebony Eyez → Capitol Records ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo ni en la lista de artistas de Capitol Records . El artículo fue eliminado previamente en AfD y luego, aproximadamente 5 años después, también se eliminó A7. No parece ser un buen objetivo para este individuo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 12:02, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar por nombre. *Pppery* _{ya empezó...} 04:10 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Razah

Razah → Def Jam Recordings (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El artista no aparece mencionado en Target ni en la discografía de Def Jam Recordings . Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 11:59, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retarget to Hell Razah . - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:39 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Estoy bastante seguro de que son personas diferentes. Razah es una cantante jamaiquina-estadounidense. Hell Razah es un rapero estadounidense. Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:18 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Granada

Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Granada → Selección femenina de fútbol sub-17 de Granada (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

El equipo de fútbol sub-17 no se menciona ni se habla de él en ningún sentido en el objetivo. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 11:57, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:17 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Himanshi Gawande

Himanshi Gawande → Selección femenina de hockey sobre césped sub-21 de la India (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en Target. Hola, soy Josh ( discusión ) 11:55, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a Delhi SG Pipers . Ella está mencionada allí. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 13:36 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Delhi SG Pipers es actualmente el único enlace entrante a esta redirección. Ibadibam ( discusión ) 18:21 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Concilio de Narbona (1017)

Concilio de Narbona (1017) → Concilios de Narbona (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /borrar ]

No se puede encontrar evidencia en la página de destino (o en Google) de que hubo un concilio de Narbona en 1017. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 11:54 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario . Se menciona en Borrell (obispo de Vic) y podría citarse; la siguiente oración tiene una fuente que podría respaldar plausiblemente una o ambas oraciones, sin embargo, esa fuente es un libro en la biblioteca de Internet Archive (actualmente fuera de línea debido a un ataque DDOS), el único otro sitio que parece tener el texto también está temporalmente fuera de línea por mantenimiento (y no está archivado en Wayback Machine), por lo que no puedo verificarlo. Ese es el único lugar en línea en el que puedo encontrar mención de algún evento significativo en Narbona en ese año (aparte, posiblemente, de un arzobispo de la antigua diócesis de Narbona que se retira). Thryduulf ( discusión ) 15:39 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Según una copia disponible en la biblioteca de mi universidad, la fuente citada se refiere a un "consejo de obispos". Hay información aquí que podría añadirse plausiblemente al objetivo, aunque no estoy lo suficientemente versado en historia eclesiástica como para decir si califica para una entrada. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:11 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
Eliminar a menos que/hasta que se añada al objetivo información sobre un consejo de Narbona 1017. Esta redirección se puede recrear fácilmente si se añadiera más tarde. A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:19 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Meenakshi Rohilla

Meenakshi Rohilla → Ciclismo en la India (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Las búsquedas de Google no muestran ningún ciclista indio conocido con este nombre. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 10:32 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar No puedo encontrar a nadie de ninguna nacionalidad con este nombre que tenga alguna conexión con el ciclismo, sea notable o no. Hay una obstetra y ginecóloga que se destaca en los resultados académicos, pero que no tiene ninguna conexión con nada relacionado con el ciclismo, por lo que sé, y una corredora amateur y entusiasta del fitness que se destaca en Instagram, pero no parece haber publicado ningún contenido relacionado con el ciclismo. Reeti Meenakshi Rohilla es una periodista (presumiblemente) canadiense que ha escrito al menos dos artículos sobre ciclismo, pero se trata de historias de interés local relacionadas con el área de Sioux Lookout en Ontario, y no parece que se la conozca solo por una parte de su nombre. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:32 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep : Meenakshi Rohilla es el nombre completo de la ciclista india Meenakshi. Como no ha mencionado a Rohilla en su perfil y solo ha usado su primer nombre, todos los artículos usan solo a Meenakshi. ^[1] Pero su apellido es Rohilla y ha sido confirmado por ella a través de su colaboración ciclista. Aquí está la publicación. ^{[2] —} Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por OCDD ( discusión • contribuciones ) 09:06, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Pero sin una mención en el artículo, ¿por qué sería eso una razón para conservarlo? A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:22 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  No se trata del artículo vinculado. [Lo agregué porque se mencionó anteriormente que no pudieron encontrar un ciclista con ese nombre] Se trata de su nombre completo, que se usará para su página cada vez que se cree. Por el momento, una redirección funciona bien. OCDD ( discusión ) 13:00, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por nombre y Thryduulf. A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:22 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apretar

Ajustar → Megamind#Cast ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Vamos a intentarlo de nuevo... cerrado antes sin consenso, con votos divididos entre... todo, en realidad. ¿Opiniones? cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 20:56, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Para que conste, mi voto será para volver a apuntar a Tight Cogsan _{(regámela) (acechame)} 20:56, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo . EurekaLott y Presidentman explicaron en detalle en la última discusión por qué esta es la mejor opción y, a menos que haya cambiado algo muy significativo en los últimos 2 meses (y no he detectado nada), todo lo que dijeron sigue siendo válido. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:25 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Haciendo ping a los que comentaron en la discusión reciente: @Duckmather , Red-tailed hawk , Eureka Lott , Presidentman , BugGhost, Pppery , Godsy , BD2412 y Steel1943 : . Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:27 28 sep 2024 (UTC ) [ responder ]
@ Bugghost : arreglando el ping. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:28 28 sep 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]
Borrar Redirigir una palabra del diccionario a la ortografía incorrecta del nombre de un personaje de una película es absolutamente incorrecto y asombroso. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 00:29, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Te sorprendería saber que en realidad no es un error de ortografía. Quiero decir, es una mala interpretación de "titan", pero ese es el punto principal, y se hace referencia a él como "tighten" en los créditos jajaja cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 23:39, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Debería aclarar que esto no es necesariamente un voto para mantener, es solo "no eliminar por error tipográfico " cogsan _{(regañame) (acechame)} 17:53, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Desambiguación . Según WP:SSRT , solo los temas con un alcance menos que enciclopédico que son palabras comúnmente wikificadas o que se recrean repetidamente deberían convertirse en redirecciones suaves (énfasis mío). Esta palabra no está comúnmente wikificada (de hecho, no hay enlaces en el espacio principal que apunten a ella), ni ha sido recreada repetidamente. Pero debido a que podría ser razonablemente un término de búsqueda para varios elementos en Wikipedia, y ninguno parece un tema principal fácil , una página de dab debería ser suficiente. Mi opinión no ha cambiado desde la discusión anterior. — Halcón de cola roja _(nido) 02:11, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgase en línea con mi razonamiento en la discusión anterior. Como señala Thryduulf, nada parece haber cambiado aquí. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 02:17, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sugiero agregar una {{ nota de sombrero de Wikcionario }} como mínimo. Sin embargo, parece bastante WP:RASTONISHing . Por cierto, también verifiqué si existe el término "tensado", pero aparentemente solo tenemos " El tensado" . 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:05, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgase al día con la última discusión. Nada ha cambiado desde la última vez. Estaría bien una nota en Megamind#Cast to Tight (o donde sea) si alguien siente que esto es realmente ambiguo o una búsqueda probable, pero no tiene sentimientos realmente fuertes. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:56, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario . Reconozco que me han hecho ping. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 23:27 28 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) 21:29 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Me sumo a la idea de eliminar el texto, aunque estoy de acuerdo con la idea de volver a dirigirlo o de incluir una nota en el texto a Tight . De cualquier manera, esto no debería quedarse como está , por el simple hecho de que cualquiera que busque el verbo inglés extremadamente común se sorprendería mucho de encontrarse aquí. Me cuesta pensar en una forma en que Megamind, la película, sea más notable que la palabra en inglés a la que hace referencia como broma. Si nos quedamos en Megamind , necesita una nota en el texto. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:46 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar a tight como una conjugación de esa palabra. Tighten podría ser el nombre correcto del carácter, pero estoy bastante seguro de que el carácter no es WP:PTOPIC , incluso si es una coincidencia exacta. Es un carácter menor, en lugar de una palabra común. No me opondría a agregar el carácter al DAB... otras conjugaciones de la palabra ya están allí de todos modos. Fieari ( discusión ) 07:37 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aunque estoy de acuerdo contigo en que Tight es (posiblemente) el objetivo correcto y Megamind#Cast definitivamente no lo es, debo señalar que Tighten es el villano principal de la película, no un personaje secundario. Solo una pequeña crítica en una publicación con la que, por lo demás, estoy totalmente de acuerdo. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 13:32 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a Tight e incluir el personaje en la página de desambiguación. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 23:17 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a publicar para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la publicación:Un intento más.
Por favor, agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:10, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

¿Eh? Parece que el consenso fue volver a apuntar a Cogsan esta vez _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 13:39, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Definitivamente no. No puedes ignorar los votos ! anteriores cuando se vuelve a publicar una discusión. En este momento, claramente no hay consenso y probablemente se esté inclinando hacia un cierre de desambiguación de WP:NCRET . C F A 💬 14:42, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sí, tal como yo lo veo, esto va directo a un cierre de WP:BARTENDER . No tenemos un consenso sobre a dónde ir, pero los votos de Keep y Merely Hatnote son una minoría bastante pequeña en comparación con los de Disambiguate, Retarget y Delete combinados (en total, el voto de "No podemos quedarnos aquí") 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 02:39 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar a Tight ya que el objetivo actual es sorprendente . Schützenpanzer (discusión) 23:13 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lista de juramentos

Lista de insultos → Blasfemias (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No existe tal lista en el objetivo; no deberíamos sugerir a los lectores que la tengamos. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:46, 29 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Las listas de comentarios se han eliminado varias veces, incluidas las siguientes : Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Lista de blasfemias (2006), Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Lista de palabrotas (2007), Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Glosario de insultos sexuales (2006) y (en estos y otros títulos) muchas veces rápidamente bajo múltiples criterios (normalmente A3, G3 y/o G4). El contenido eliminado en este título era solo una lista con viñetas de las Siete palabras sucias sin literalmente ningún otro contenido. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 18:03 29 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario Creo que en realidad hay margen para algún tipo de lista de listas aquí, ya que muchos de los artículos en Categoría:Blasfemias y sus subcategorías contienen listas (por ejemplo, Palabra de cuatro letras , Blasfemias italianas , Blasfemias bhojpuri , Blasfemias en chino mandarín (casi en su totalidad listas), y Wikcionario tiene otras categorías y listas (por ejemplo, wikt:Glosario de blasfemias rumanas, wikt:Apéndice:Palabras censuradas en inglés, wikt:Categoría:Vulgaridades inglesas, wikt:Categoría:Gastos de maldición en inglés, wikt:Apéndice:Palabras de maldición ficticias en inglés). También tenemos Listas de términos peyorativos para personas , Juramentos picados en los medios , Problema de Scunthorpe que relaciona listas/artículos que contienen listas pero no son un objetivo adecuado para la redirección. La cantidad de veces que se han recreado los diversos títulos sugiere fuertemente que esto es algo que la gente está buscando aquí. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 18:03, 29 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por consenso y discusiones similares en Wikipedia : Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/26 de agosto de 2015#Redirecciones a profanidad , Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/30 de septiembre de 2015#Dagnabbit y varias discusiones enumeradas en Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/4 de septiembre de 2015. Simplemente no hay consenso para esto. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 18:42 30 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sinceramente, me sorprende que esto no sea un maldito artículo, pero lo elimino por mi nombre. Charlotte ( Queen of Hearts • discusión ) 04:52, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si así fuera, el título sería incorrecto y/o tendría que eliminarse rápidamente por tratarse de un artículo que duplica el tema de otro artículo. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 17:51 1 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]
DABify , o posiblemente crear una lista de listas . Creo que esto es algo válido que alguien podría buscar, y ya tenemos la información que están buscando , solo es necesario compilarla correctamente para enviarles todas las listas de blasfemias que de hecho ya tenemos. Fieari ( discusión ) 02:59 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar porque no existe una lista real. ¿Por qué molestarse con una redirección? Wolfdog ( discusión ) 22:10 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso no es del todo cierto, no existe ninguna lista con este título, pero sí muchas más específicas. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 10:45 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar . No existe ninguna lista (aun suponiendo que el uso de "jurar" como sustantivo aquí sea correcto). Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 09:59 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Aunque normalmente recomendaría borrar... ¿sería una mala idea simplemente redirigir a Seven Dirty Words ? No es una lista de literalmente todas las blasfemias en inglés, pero al menos es una lista de algunas blasfemias. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 01:51 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No sería una buena redirección, ya que esa lista es significativamente más limitada que el término de búsqueda; por ejemplo, omite todas las malas palabras que no están en inglés (de las que tenemos varias listas). Thryduulf ( discusión ) 02:01, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Buen punto. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 02:14 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Por eso sigo defendiendo la creación de una lista de listas... ya que tenemos todas esas listas. Fieari ( discusión ) 07:40 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lo mismo. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 10:32 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Estoy de acuerdo en que hay margen para algún tipo de lista de listas, y nada en esta RfD impide que un editor cree una, pero el título de esa lista de listas no sería "Lista de palabrotas". Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 14:00 13 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! 09:09, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

DABify para Fieari. Es un término de búsqueda muy plausible y hay contenido relevante. Eliminarlo me parece perjudicial. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:22, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una lista de palabras es el trabajo de un diccionario . Redirección suave a wikt:Categoría:Palabras malsonantes en inglés. — Cryptic 06:44, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las malas palabras no se limitan al inglés y tenemos mucho contenido enciclopédico directamente relacionado. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:19 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Alicia Douvall

Alicia Douvall → Celebrity Big Brother (serie de televisión británica) serie 15#Alicia Douvall ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

No es apropiado redirigir aquí, ya que también podría redirigir a Celebrity Love Island . Voto por eliminar la redirección para fomentar la creación de artículos. Laun chba ller 16:52, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo . Este era un artículo antes de que se convirtiera en una redirección en 2017 y todavía recibe 20 visitas por día. Si lo elimina, se eliminaría el historial. Y aunque su nombre aparece y se incluye un enlace en el artículo de Love Island, la poca información que hay sobre ella está en un párrafo del artículo de Celebrity Big Brother. Station1 ( discusión ) 07:26 29 sep 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 el historial de la página?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:03, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Voluntad (sociología)

Voluntad (sociología) → Gemeinschaft y Gesellschaft ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Retarget a Ferdinand Tönnies#Gemeinschaft y Gesellschaft , donde se explica. - Charla del presidente · contribuciones ( Talkback ) 16:37, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Sigue así . Tönnies se centraba en el voluntarismo; eso lo explica todo. Cf. También: Voluntarismo (filosofía) , aunque creo que este no es, de hecho, el objetivo ideal. Biohistorian15 ( discusión ) 13:31 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a Will (página de desambiguación) ya que el desambiguador me hace creer que esta redirección se refiere a Will and testament , pero la discusión anterior sugiere que existen múltiples posibilidades. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 16:17 11 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 ]

República Federativa Socialista Soviética de Rusia (Q2305208)

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: eliminación rápida

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen → Waldemar Hansteen (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

4 de abril de 1974

4 de abril de 1974 → Super Brote de 1974 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Tenga en cuenta que la solicitud de modificación anterior fue Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/2024 3 de octubre#31 de marzo de 2023 , que se cerró por falta de consenso. Por lo tanto, la redirección no se puede eliminar rápidamente según los criterios G6 o G7. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 07:50 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nota 2 : esto sería una eliminación técnica sin que se elimine ningún contenido real, lo que es una excepción a la regla mencionada anteriormente. La redirección se puede eliminar rápidamente ya que se creó por error. Además, nadie estaba a favor de mantener esta redirección en particular en la discusión anterior; la nota del creador, mencionada al menos tres veces durante esa discusión, en el sentido de que era un error que debía eliminarse, pareció pasar completamente desapercibida. Así que elimínenla . P Aculeius ( discusión ) 12:51 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cualquier redirección que haya sobrevivido a una discusión previa sobre eliminación, independientemente del motivo, es explícitamente inelegible para la mayoría de los criterios de eliminación rápida, incluidos G7 y casi todos los G6. Los comentarios en la RfD anterior favorecían la redirección, no la eliminación. El contenido se eliminaría aquí, por lo que no es una excepción. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 13:57, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto está claramente cubierto como "una excepción a la norma de que una página sobreviva a su discusión de eliminación más reciente". Y debido a que esto se creó como una redirección, nunca hubo ningún contenido para guardar . Se creó por error ; el autor lo ha dicho explícitamente varias veces. Esta es una eliminación técnica de una redirección que no tiene ningún propósito útil, por lo que no hay razón para retrasarla. P Aculeius ( discusión ) 16:34 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sabemos que se creó por error, eso es irrelevante ahora que otros editores recomendaron algo distinto a la eliminación. Las redirecciones no cumplen con la exención de G6 ya que se perderán. Si no está de acuerdo con esto, inicie una discusión en WT:CSD para cambiar la política, pero a menos que y hasta que se logre un consenso, esto no se puede eliminar rápidamente. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 17:33, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lee la política. Dice claramente que las eliminaciones técnicas en las que no se perderá ningún contenido son excepciones . La razón es que no hay ninguna razón concebible para retrasar la eliminación. No necesito cambiar nada; eso es lo que dice, como ya he explicado dos veces. La idea de que la excepción no se puede eliminar rápidamente porque "se perderá la redirección" es una tontería absoluta, porque según esa lectura nada podría eliminarse rápidamente, ¡y el lenguaje sobre las excepciones no se aplicaría a nada! ¿Por qué estamos retrasando la eliminación de un error que nunca debería haber existido? P Aculeius ( discusión ) 21:17 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He leído la política varias veces y establece claramente que la excepción no se aplica cuando se pierde contenido. El contenido del que se habla aquí es una redirección que se perderá. La excepción se aplica a eliminaciones temporales y cosas como movimientos por turnos.
¿Por qué estamos retrasando la eliminación de un error que nunca debió haber existido? Porque el consenso de la discusión anterior fue que no debería eliminarse. Un editor no puede anular el consenso. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 01:50 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, aun así; había creado esta redirección por error; y debido a que sobrevivió a la RfD anterior; eso tiró por la ventana la eliminación rápida; así que la volví a incluir aquí. La redirección correcta para el brote de superpoblación es el 3 de abril de 1974. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 16:35, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . No entiendo por qué la redirección es un error, el artículo dice que el brote fue el 3 y 4 de abril de 1974. La lista de tornados en el evento del Súper Brote de 1974 del 4 de abril parecería confirmarlo, ¿no? (Nota: esto explícitamente no es un respaldo a la interpretación de Thryduulf de CSD). -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 17:43 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Porque la parte del 4 de abril se trasladó principalmente a la noche del 3 de abril (que era la fecha que tenía pensado utilizar). La mayoría, si no todos, los tornados del 4 de abril se produjeron en las primeras horas de la mañana. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 18:10, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hubo algunos casos atípicos, pero la gran mayoría de los tornados del 4 de abril se produjeron en las primeras horas de la mañana. ¿Ves por qué dije que la redirección era un error? Tenía la intención de utilizar la fecha de los violentos tornados F5 (por ejemplo, el tornado de Xenia ); en lugar de la fecha en la que el brote estaba disminuyendo. ¡El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 18:12, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, todavía no entiendo por qué dijiste que la redirección fue un error. Incluso si la mayoría de los tornados del 4 de abril ocurrieron en las "primeras horas de la mañana", aún es el 4 de abril... La lista incluye un par de tornados F3 mortales, así que no es como si no fueran violentos. Dicho esto, si realmente quieres que se elimine la redirección, no me interpondré en tu camino porque respeto los deseos del autor. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 19:01 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mi razonamiento es que el 3 de abril fue el día principal del brote y yo tenía la intención de crear la redirección para el día principal. Si realmente vale la pena tener una redirección, entonces estoy a favor de mantenerla o cambiar el objetivo. Pero probablemente solo sea cuestión de tiempo antes de que GeorgeMemulous o alguien más la vuelva a modificar. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 19:22, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Tavix , si estás decidido a conservar esto, en un segundo lugar distante, tal vez prefiera reorientarlo a abril de 1974. ¡ El huracán Clyde ! 🌀 ¡ ^{Mi página de discusión!} 00:41, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

23 de junio de 2016

23 de junio de 2016 → Inundación en Virginia Occidental de 2016 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La inundación de 2016 en Virginia Occidental no parece ser el tema principal. Probablemente debería redireccionarse a Portal:Actualidad/23 de junio de 2016. C F A 💬 02:04 , 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Voy a permanecer neutral . Creé la redirección porque podría haberme sido útil al editar el artículo sobre las inundaciones. Pero no voy a argumentar necesariamente a favor de ninguno de los dos. ¡ El huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 02:19, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En mi opinión, la justificación que dio @CFA es tan válida como la justificación que tuve para crear la redirección. Por eso me mantendré neutral. ¡Huracán Clyde 🌀 ^{mi página de discusión!} 02:25, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Debo confesar que no me fijé mucho en si había pasado algo más ese día, así que fue un error bastante tonto. ¡El huracán Clyde ! 🌀 ^{¡Mi página de discusión!} 05:54, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redireccionar a Portal:Actualidad/23 de junio de 2016 , lo mismo que con otras discusiones de esta naturaleza. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:19, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar según lo indicado anteriormente. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 07:51 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

16 de octubre

Apretón gamma

Apretón gamma → Apretón corto#Apretón gamma ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Borra el redireccionamiento o corrige el contenido del artículo de destino del redireccionamiento. El artículo Short Squeeze actualmente no menciona en absoluto "gamma" ni "gamma squeeze". N2e ( discusión ) 10:39 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : Se arregló la nominación que estaba mal formada. @ N2e : Debes colocar la plantilla de nominación debajo de la línea html para que funcione correctamente. Ya lo arreglé. ¡ Habla CycloneYoris ^! 10:52, 9 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:¿Tienes alguna opinión sobre el historial de la página?
Agrega nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, ✗ plicit 23:45, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Comentario: la redirección es el resultado de Wikipedia:Artículos para eliminar/Gamma Squeeze, por lo que no se trata de una situación BLAR. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 07:46 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Protesta contra el hambre en Nigeria

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

🆓

🆓 → Gratis versus libre (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Free es un DAB, no veo una razón para que el emoji tenga un PTOPIC en particular. Charlotte ( Queen of Hearts • discusión ) 20:43 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a la página DAB como la más útil para el lector. Cremastra ( discusión ) 20:47 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir al dab. El carácter es "U+1F193 SQUARED FREE" que no tiene ningún significado particular de "free". Thryduulf ( discusión ) 22:33 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar al dab según los hallazgos de Thryduulf. -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 01:15 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir al Suplemento alfanumérico adjunto , que es el suplemento Unicode. Sí, sé que esto no aclarará mucho al lector, pero en realidad no creo que el dab vaya a ser especialmente útil para los lectores. Duckmather ( discusión ) 14:52 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Duckmather ¿Por qué crees que la tabla de suplementos alfanuméricos es más útil para el lector? Creo que el DAB es más útil porque les permite elegir el significado que quieren. Por otra parte, estoy de acuerdo en que podrían querer la información limitada que tenemos sobre el emoji en sí. Tal vez se podría añadir un Suplemento Alfanumérico Adjunto al DAB si se pudiera encontrar una redacción adecuada, como por ejemplo:
- 🆓, un emoji en el bloque Suplemento Alfanumérico Adjunto .
@Chaotic Enby también: ¿es aceptable como compromiso? Cremastra — discusión — c 01:37, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Eso podría funcionar conmigo! Chaotic Enby ( discusión · contribuciones ) 02:05 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar al Suplemento alfanumérico adjunto : es probable que un usuario que escriba el emoji específicamente (en lugar de "Gratis") esté buscando información sobre el emoji en lugar de uno de los otros significados múltiples del término. Es más bien una distinción entre uso y mención , donde buscar el emoji tiene muchas más probabilidades de ser mencionarlo que usarlo por su significado. Chaotic Enby ( discusión · contribs ) 17:04, 11 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, C F A 💬 23:16, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Gratis versus libre también podría titularse gratis (palabra): ese es su tema. El significado del emoji será naturalmente más restringido que "gratis" escrito. Por lo tanto, no creo que sea tan claro como otros piensan, pero en general tengo reservas sobre reorientar los emojis al tema que cubren. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:25, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigue estando de acuerdo con J947 en que Gratis versus libre es esencialmente Gratis (palabra) y no puedo imaginar para qué más se podría usar el emoji en Gratis . -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 18:48 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a Free , la página DAB, a la que he añadido tanto el Suplemento alfanumérico adjunto como los enlaces Gratis versus libre . Cuando hay varios objetivos útiles, la desambiguación suele ser la mejor solución, y tanto el objetivo actual como el Suplemento alfanumérico adjunto me parecen igualmente plausibles. El DAB ayudará rápidamente al usuario a encontrar lo que busca. Fieari ( discusión ) 23:23 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Wikipedia:VB

Wikipedia:VB → Plantilla:Bienal de Venecia (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Una redirección de acceso directo desde el espacio de nombres de Wikipedia a una plantilla de navegación no tiene mucho sentido. Probablemente debería redirigirse a Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball . ✗ plicit 14:49, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar como se sugiere o eliminar, estoy de acuerdo en que este XNR no tiene sentido. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 18:49 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir al proyecto wiki o eliminar como segunda opción. De cualquier manera, no debería ser un WP:XNR . Fieari ( discusión ) 23:23 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar . Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball no se ha dado cuenta de que no los redirecciona y, por lo tanto, no lo necesitan. Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 14:26 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar por Shhhhnotsoloud. Ambiguo con respecto a una plantilla aleatoria. Si WP Volleyball la quiere, la puede crear. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 15:35, 14 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 reorientar?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:15, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Nota Plantilla:Vb , si se sugiere TM:VB como reemplazo de este atajo. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Estos deben discutirse por separado, ya que Template:Vb tiene bastantes inclusiones. ✗ plicit 13:50, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Solo para aclarar, me opongo a la eliminación. El hecho de que un acceso directo no se utilice no es una razón válida para la eliminación. ✗ plicit 13:50, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar porque al WikiProject no parecía importarle este acceso directo antes, así que no estoy seguro de por qué lo harían ahora. También podría liberar el título para alguien que quiera usarlo con un propósito más visible y constructivo. (Sin embargo, si ese propósito termina siendo que alguien del WikiProject cree esta redirección para apuntar al WikiProject, la redirección debería ser inmune a WP:G4 .) Steel1943 ( discusión ) 18:22 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball como único objetivo sensato. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 18:51 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Estreñimiento

Constipación → Constipación (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Término no mencionado ni definido en el objetivo. Aunque es similar a "Estreñimiento", parece ser una afección completamente diferente y más grave. ¡ ^Habla CycloneYoris ! 09:58, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tras una rápida búsqueda, no he encontrado un objetivo lo suficientemente bueno para eso, aparte de tal vez una obstrucción intestinal (donde tampoco se menciona). ¿Funcionaría por ahora una redirección suave a wikt:obstipation? cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 13:52, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Una nota rápida: este término, "estreñimiento", es muy, muy raro en comparación con la obstrucción intestinal aguda (que parece ser el término equivalente "moderno", pero esa es solo mi impresión y no una fuente confiable).

Las definiciones del diccionario daban algo así como "estreñimiento grave + agudo", e incluso parecía una emergencia médica. Por lo tanto, basándome en esas definiciones del diccionario, cambié el enlace de defecación obstruida , que en mi opinión era inapropiado (esta última es una afección crónica, no una emergencia médica) y además no tenía fuentes. Moribundum ( discusión ) 18:10 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a incluir para generar un debate más exhaustivo y un consenso más claro.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, Saludos, SONIC 678 19:48, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Batalla de la ciudad 17

RfD anteriores para esta redirección y redirecciones similares:

Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/23 de septiembre de 2017 § Tentacle (Half-Life) – Trainwreck
Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/14 de octubre de 2017 § Manhack – Desastre

Batalla de la Ciudad 17 → Half-Life 2 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
La batalla de la ciudad 17 → Half-Life 2 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Batalla por la ciudad 17 → Half-Life 2 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Posible WP:Fancruft aunque técnicamente no está mal TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 18:26 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿A alguien le importaría agrupar La Batalla de la Ciudad 17 y La Batalla por la Ciudad 17 ? TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 18:29 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : cada uno de estos por separado fue en algún momento un artículo, pero no una única fuente entre ellos. A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:43 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Aeropuerto de Shamrock

Aeropuerto de Shamrock → Lista de aeropuertos en Texas#Aeropuerto ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Se dirige a un artículo de clase lista que no contiene información específica sobre el tema. El tema en sí parece no estar a la altura de WP:GNG y WP:NBUILD debido a la falta de cobertura en las fuentes de WP:SECONDARY, excluyendo las menciones de WP:ROTM en bases de datos gubernamentales y de navegación relacionadas con la aviación, por lo que es poco probable que la redirección justifique alguna vez su reemplazo por un artículo completo. Carguychris ( discusión ) 19:17 30 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Las redirecciones de Keep no tienen por qué cumplir con WP:N (y no tienen por qué tener potencial para ser artículos independientes) y, en particular, dado que el objetivo tiene información sobre el aeropuerto que se parece más al aeropuerto de Shamrock, esta es una redirección generalmente útil. Skynxnex ( discusión ) 19:25, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir al aeropuerto de Brooklyn , que tiene "Aeropuerto Shamrock" como nombre alternativo según la foto del cartel en el artículo. Dirigir el artículo a un artículo en prosa parece más útil para los lectores y, si es necesario, siempre se puede agregar una nota a la lista. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 22:09, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgase . Mencionado en el objetivo, que también tiene una nota al aeropuerto de Brooklyn . Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 10:13 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirección débil al aeropuerto de Brooklyn con hatnote, que creo que es ligeramente preferible a mantener. (El título de esta redirección era el título anterior del artículo sobre el aeropuerto de Brooklyn). J 947 ‡ ^edits 21:11, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientación hacia el aeropuerto de Brooklyn . Creo que el hecho de que uno de estos sea lo suficientemente notable como para tener un artículo independiente, mientras que el otro está enterrado en una lista, hace que WP:PTOPIC sea claro. Se puede agregar una nota al pie por si acaso. Fieari ( discusión ) 04:27 11 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,_firmado, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Redirigir al aeropuerto de Brooklyn y agregar una nota sobre el aeropuerto municipal de Shamrock en Shamrock, Texas (que es a donde intentaba apuntar la redirección), que de otra manera es una franja básica de asfalto con un hangar y no tiene ningún código de aeropuerto real más allá de una asignación de "2F1". Nate • ( charla ) 16:41, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Torchic → Usuario:Blake/Torchic ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth → Lista de Pokémon de la primera generación (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mr. Mime → Mr. Mime (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur → Bulbasaur ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Como hablé con TechnoSquirrel69 , ¿esto podría ser problemático ? Web-julio ( discusión ) 02:54 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Los WikiProjects generalmente hacen lo que quieren en su propio espacio de nombres. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:04 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
De hecho, como dice el editor anónimo, estos parecen ser {{ R from move }} inofensivos que podrían ser útiles para el WikiProject; algunos de ellos incluso tienen enlaces internos. Dado que ninguno de los problemas habituales asociados con las redirecciones entre espacios de nombres se aplica realmente aquí, me inclino a mantener . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( suspiro ) 03:13, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pokémon WikiProject notificados . - TechnoSquirrel69 ( suspiro ) 03:17, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Keep - Redirecciones inofensivas de Wikiproject. No son de cara al usuario, los wikiproyectos pueden hacer lo que quieran con ellas. Fieari ( discusión ) 06:58 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

refinar la segunda lista de pokémon gen 1#meowth , encontrar una manera de encontrar redirecciones y encontrar el resto para los existentes (opcional) cogsan _{(regañame) (acechame)} 11:39, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ataques de 2001

Ataques de 2001 → Ataques del 11 de septiembre (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Ataques terroristas de 2001 → Ataques del 11 de septiembre (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Estas redirecciones presuponen que el 11 de septiembre es el único ataque terrorista que ocurrió en 2001, lo cual es falso. Sugiero que se redirija a la Lista de incidentes terroristas de 2001. En cuanto a los ataques de 2001 , probablemente RC, IR pueda eliminarlos por completo, ya que se realizaron hace menos de un año. SeaHaircutSoilReplace ( discusión ) 23:35 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a la lista de incidentes terroristas de 2001 según @SeaHaircutSoilReplace . ¿No se había modificado esto antes? El término es demasiado ambiguo para apuntar a un artículo sobre un incidente en particular, incluso si el 11 de septiembre es el más significativo desde el punto de vista histórico. Carguychris ( discusión ) 15:38 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Carguychris Esta redirección no ha sido modificada previamente, lo cual me parece ridículo. SeaHaircutSoilReplace ( discusión ) 15:59 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No te preocupes, creo que se trataba de algo similar y vago, como "incidente terrorista de 2001". Solo recuerdo haber hecho un comentario casi idéntico antes. Carguychris ( discusión ) 16:57 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Acabo de encontrar los ataques terroristas de 2001 a través de WLH y los agregué a esta propuesta. SeaHaircutSoilReplace ( discusión ) 17:24 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redireccionamiento según lo indicado anteriormente. Hubo algunas redirecciones similares a principios de este año, pero no recuerdo cuáles. PARAKANYAA ( discusión ) 19:37 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Carguychris y PARKANYAA: puede que estén pensando en Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/2024 9 de febrero #2001 Ataques de Nueva York (esa nominación fue retirada), aunque ninguno de ustedes comentó sobre esa discusión. Yo también recuerdo algo similar a esto y es lo único que puedo encontrar. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 22:58 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@PARKANYAA : arreglando el ping . Thryduulf ( charla ) 22:59, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]
@ Thryduulf De hecho, eso era lo que estaba pensando. Recuerdo otro similar, aunque supongo que eso no importa mucho, jaja. Gracias. PARAKANYAA ( discusión ) 23:15 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@PARAKANYAA después de buscar un poco más encontré Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/2024 9 de septiembre #2001 incidente en el que Carguychris participó. El resultado fue eliminarlo porque era demasiado vago. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 23:29 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Ese era el otro! Gracias. Lo vi. Rara vez voto en las RfD, pero me quedo mucho al acecho. PARAKANYAA ( discusión ) 23:31 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, eso fue todo. Carguychris ( discusión ) 15:06 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo . No estoy de acuerdo con la nominación, estas redirecciones no asumen que el 11 de septiembre es el único ataque terrorista en 2001, sino que el 11 de septiembre sería el tema principal para estos términos. Todo esto dice que alguien que busque "ataques (terroristas) de 2001" probablemente estaría buscando el 11 de septiembre por sobre todos los demás temas. Si bien en 2001 también hubo eventos como los ataques con ántrax de 2001 y la bomba en el zapato , todos palidecen en comparación con el 11 de septiembre. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 16:37, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantengamos el 11-S como tema principal. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario @ Tavix @ CFA Incluso si fuera el tema principal, no creo que nadie buscara "ataques de 2001" o "ataques terroristas de 2001" si estuviera buscando el 11 de septiembre. Lo más probable es que simplemente buscaran, bueno, 11 de septiembre . Sea Haircut Soil Replace (discusión) 00:53 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
A mí me parece bastante plausible, la verdad. Las redirecciones son baratas. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retarget Es mucho más probable que alguien que escriba "ataques terroristas de 2001" esté buscando una lista de ataques terroristas que ocurrieron en 2001, especialmente si no sabe de antemano qué título le dimos. Esa es una forma muy natural de buscarlo. Además, los lectores que busquen 11/9 lo encontrarán fácilmente en esa página de destino, mientras que lo opuesto es mucho menos obvio. Chaotic Enby ( discusión · contribs ) 02:13 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantener : Realicé algunas búsquedas con [8] y [9] otros [10] motores de búsqueda [11] — los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre son definitivamente el PTOPIC para ambas redirecciones. No veo cómo alguien que escribe "ataques terroristas de 2001" tiene más probabilidades de estar buscando una lista de ataques terroristas que ocurrieron en 2001 , principalmente porque no se proporciona ninguna evidencia que respalde esta afirmación. Cremastra — discusión — c 12:30, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retarget por nom, simplemente porque el año en el que se produjo el objetivo actual es menos notable que su combinación mes/día. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 13:17 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo muy claro WP:PTOPIC . Fieari ( discusión ) 23:30 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep Me parece que también es el tema principal. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 04:12, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario @ Fieari @ Pppery El hecho de que sea el tema principal no significa que la gente vaya a buscarlo. Como puedes ver en los recuentos de visitas de las 3 redirecciones, las dos últimas no obtienen nada en comparación con la redirección del 11 de septiembre. Todas las visitas recientes a la página de estas en las últimas dos semanas son personas que vienen a esta RfD de todos modos. Sea Haircut Soil Replace (discusión) 14:00, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- 9/11 vistas
- Vistas de los ataques de 2001
- Vistas de los ataques terroristas de 2001

Aeropuerto de Hall

Aeropuerto de Hall → Kaufman, Texas#Características ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

He publicado el artículo sobre este aeropuerto en el que se basa que no cumple con los requisitos de WP:GNG y WP:NBUILD debido a la falta de cobertura en las fuentes de WP:SECONDARY, excluyendo las menciones de WP:ROTM en las bases de datos de navegación y gubernamentales relacionadas con la aviación. Otro usuario hizo un esfuerzo de buena fe para preservar el contenido fusionándolo con el artículo de Kaufman, Texas , pero el usuario no se dio cuenta de que el aeropuerto ha sido eliminado de los registros de la FAA porque presumiblemente ha cerrado de forma permanente (lo que, en retrospectiva, debería haber mencionado en la nominación de PROD). Por lo tanto, el artículo del aeropuerto ha sido reemplazado por una redirección que apunta a un artículo sobre una ciudad, pero el contenido que habla del aeropuerto presumiblemente debería eliminarse del artículo de destino por las mismas razones que describo anteriormente. Sugiero que tanto el contenido como la redirección deberían eliminarse. Carguychris ( discusión ) 21:57, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Carguychris : Mientras el contenido esté ahí, la redirección es apropiada. Si el contenido se elimina del artículo de destino (que no es algo que RfD pueda o deba obligar, pero es algo que usted puede hacer por sí mismo según WP:BRD ), entonces lo correcto es restaurar el artículo y enviarlo a AfD. Si cree que el contenido no es adecuado para Wikipedia, entonces le recomendaría la última opción (en cuyo caso puede cerrar esto como retirado). -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 22:55, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, he eliminado el contenido del aeropuerto del artículo de destino, pero devolver el artículo anterior sobre el aeropuerto de Hall únicamente a AfD parece excesivo. Carguychris ( discusión ) 15:31 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia no trata solo de lo que hay ahora, la historia también es parte de Wikipedia. Entonces, si había un aeropuerto allí, ¿por qué no sería apropiado que fuera parte de la historia de la ciudad? Así como conservamos el artículo sobre el aeropuerto de Tempelhof después de su cierre, entonces deberíamos tener secciones de historia para las ciudades, mencionando puntos de referencia importantes que ya no existen.-- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:09, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tempelhof claramente cumple con WP:GNG y WP:NBUILD . El aeropuerto de Hall era una pista de césped de 2500 pies de propiedad privada sin instalaciones significativas. La mayoría de las pistas de aterrizaje privadas pequeñas no deberían tener artículos de Wikipedia según WP:ROTM , pero muchas de ellas sí los tienen porque están incluidas en bases de datos de aviación en línea convenientes. Carguychris ( discusión ) 13:38, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estoy de acuerdo con el anónimo. Yo preferiría restaurar el contenido del artículo y mantener la redirección. Estoy de acuerdo en que este aeropuerto no es lo suficientemente notable como para tener su propio artículo. No estoy de acuerdo en que no valga la pena mencionarlo en el artículo sobre la ciudad. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 18:14, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Conservar y restaurar el contenido según el Presidente. El hecho de que esté cerrado no significa que no se deba mencionar en absoluto. A7V2 ( discusión ) 04:38 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Personajes no mencionados de Suikoden

Alen (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Apple (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Barbarossa Rugner → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Bright (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Camille (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Clive (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gadget (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gadget Z → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gaspar (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Georg Prime → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Grenseal → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Hix (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Humphrey Mintz → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Jeane (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Joshua Levenheit → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kasim Hazil → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kasumi (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kessler (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Killey → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kraze → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kun To → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Kwanda Rosman → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Leknaat → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Leon Silverberg → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lepant → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lilly Pendragon → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lorelai (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Lucia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Maximillian (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Melodye → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Milia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Milich Oppenheimer → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Nash Latkje → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Neclord → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Pesmerga → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Ronnie Bell (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Sarah (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Sasarai → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Sheena (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Familia Silverberg → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Sonya Shulen → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Semental (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Templeton (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Tengaar → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Tuta (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Windy (Suikoden) → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes ( discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Yam Koo → Suikoden (videojuego)#Personajes (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Ninguno de estos se menciona en el objetivo. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 00:36, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Conservar todo (se aplica también a las nominaciones anteriores; haré C&P allí si es necesario, pero será la misma discusión) por criterio 1 (todos estos fueron fusionados) y criterio 5 (son útiles - por ejemplo, enlaces desde una página de desambiguación o simplemente búsquedas de un personaje). También es al menos posible que las listas de personajes puedan ser recuperadas algún día con mejores fuentes independientes. Útil e inofensivo, mejor dejarlo así en mi opinión. (Ver Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11#Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_V para un ejemplo de lista de personajes que fue redirigida, la redirección fue nominada para eliminación, la RFD falló y el historial de la página se mantuvo, y el artículo efectivamente volvió más tarde.) SnowFire ( discusión ) 01:17, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay una distinción entre las redirecciones que hacen referencia a los personajes como un concepto, como la discusión a la que enlazaste, las redirecciones que hacen referencia a los personajes como una lista y las redirecciones que hacen referencia a personajes individuales. Personajes de Suikoden o Personajes de Suikoden estarían bien como redirecciones basadas en el precedente al que enlazaste (con el que estoy de acuerdo), porque el destino contiene alguna discusión de los personajes como un concepto. La lista de personajes de Suikoden es perjudicial porque su existencia implica engañosamente que el destino contiene, bueno, una lista de personajes de Suikoden, lo cual no es así, lo que deja a cualquier usuario confundido.
Las redirecciones para caracteres individuales también son perjudiciales porque implican engañosamente que Wikipedia tiene algún contenido sobre el personaje cuando no es así.
Y en particular, no son útiles para enlaces en una página de desambiguación porque cualquier uso de ese tipo haría fallar a WP:DABMENTION , y el hecho de que haría fallar esa directriz está oculto para la mayoría de sus encargados de hacerla cumplir, quienes probablemente no lo verifiquen.
Y no creo que ninguna de las partes de WP:R#K1 se aplique realmente: la historia de la mayoría de estos es contenido de estilo Fandom, lo cual es peor que empezar desde cero si intentaras crear un artículo sobre uno de los personajes, y no es necesario conservar nada legalmente ya que no se fusionó nada más allá de las listas que también creo que deberían eliminarse. * Pppery * _{ha comenzado...} 02:16, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La lista de personajes de Suikoden contiene un historial de páginas significativo que será relevante si alguien alguna vez quiere intentar restaurar estos artículos y/o fusionar contenido de ellos. El "historial de páginas significativo" es específicamente un criterio de conservación en RFD. No hay nada engañoso aquí en absoluto: eso era un artículo si alguien seguía algunos enlaces antiguos en el historial de páginas, y una redirección es el identificador adecuado para ello. Lo mismo para personajes específicos. No hay ningún problema en absoluto, y el estándar en RFD es simplemente "es útil". No estoy diciendo que cada pequeña pieza de basura tenga que conservarse, si alguien fuera por ahí haciendo redirecciones para cada nombre de habilidad o mazmorra, pero todos estos tienen historiales de páginas no triviales y algunos de ellos son personajes destacados para los que una redirección es útil (criterio de conservación 5).
¿Cambiaría las cosas si dijera que, personalmente, me resultaría útil el historial de la página? Porque no me malinterpreten, creo que algunos de los artículos de la lista deberían volver, pero no quería molestarme en pelearme en una posible AFD a menos que pudiera conseguir fuentes que probablemente estén en japonés. Pero como muestra el ejemplo de FF5, esto puede pasar. He trabajado en artículos "serios" que no tenían que ver con los videojuegos y que estaban en un estado débil y sin fuentes, y, en general, el contenido existente, por problemático que fuera, no era en absoluto peor que nada, a menudo era bastante útil. SnowFire ( discusión ) 02:27, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Considero que las redirecciones se basan en el presente, no en el pasado. Es engañoso tener una redirección de "lista de X" que apunte a una página donde no hay ninguna lista de X. Es engañoso tener una redirección que apunte a un lugar donde no existe ninguna discusión sobre el término al que se redirige. Creo que partimos de puntos de vista suficientemente diferentes como para que ninguno de los dos convenza al otro de nuestra posición, así que lo dejaré así. * Pppery * _{ha comenzado...} 02:34, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que sí, pero no se trata únicamente de una cuestión de opinión sin una respuesta correcta y solo de consenso. Los criterios de conservación de RFD son bastante explícitos en cuanto a que el "historial de página no trivial" es de hecho una razón para conservarlo, ya que es "útil para alguien que dice que es útil de buena fe", y ambas se cumplen aquí. Los personajes de Suikoden se analizan en los artículos pertinentes, aunque no con la profundidad que tenía la lista anterior. Y solo por una cuestión práctica, en lugar de dedicar mucho trabajo a eliminar las redirecciones y solicitar que se vuelvan a crear en el espacio de usuario o algo similar, ¿por qué no dejar que todas las redirecciones antiguas vuelvan a la vida si alguien escribió una lista de personajes de Suikoden al estilo de Wikipedia moderna? (No es mi argumento principal, pero lo planteo. Nuevamente, vea el caso de FF5: parece que, según su lógica, deberíamos haber eliminado ese artículo y todas sus redirecciones, y luego haber obligado a las personas que querían recrearlo a hablar con un administrador si querían ver el historial de la página antes de recrearlo y las redirecciones más tarde. ¿Para qué beneficio?) SnowFire ( discusión ) 23:17, 25 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy de acuerdo con la afirmación de que eliminar redirecciones que no son útiles para los lectores es una tarea inútil . 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:46, 27 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
+ 1 Steel1943 (discusión) 19:54 28 sep 2024 (UTC)[responder]
@ Steel1943 , dado tu voto a continuación, supongo que estás tratando de+ 1¿Mi comentario y no el de SnowFire? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:18, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Mis sangrías no mienten! Steel1943 ( discusión ) 23:56 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ups, ¿se trataba de Pppery? Parece que me confundí con las líneas sangradas de CD debido a la+ 1. Aunque supongo que para eso está el botón "Ir al comentario principal". 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:06, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Conservar todo para la preservación de la historia no trivial y la utilidad para alguien. WP:CHEAP se aplica, y no acepto el argumento de que es perjudicial. No creo que WP:LEAST se viole si alguien fuera redirigido a este objetivo, incluso si actualmente falta información, y hay una declaración de buena fe anterior de que estos personajes pueden tener suficientes fuentes para ser considerados notables según los estándares de Wikipedia en el futuro, lo cual aceptaré al pie de la letra. Fieari ( discusión ) 00:18, 26 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿No se aplicaría aquí la misma lógica que establece que las redirecciones de personajes individuales no destacables de Fire Emblem (como Matthew )? Esto me parece un poco indiscriminado. cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 20:19, 26 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar todo . Si no están ahí, no están ahí. Es engañoso que los lectores sean redirigidos al artículo de destino cuando literalmente no hay nada allí sobre los temas de las redirecciones. Si hay alguna inquietud con los historiales de cualquiera de estas redirecciones, considere restaurarlas y enviarlas a WP:AFD . Steel1943 ( discusión ) 22:21 27 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para poner esto en perspectiva, la plantilla WP:RCAT {{ R sin mención }} pone la página en una categoría de mantenimiento llamada Categoría:Redirecciones a un artículo sin mención . El propósito de la categoría antes mencionada es esencialmente un atraso de mantenimiento; la categoría está destinada a estar vacía, lo que significa que las redirecciones que están etiquetadas con esta plantilla deben eliminarse o debe agregarse una mención de las redirecciones al artículo de destino. Ninguno de los votos de "mantener" hasta ahora ha abordado esta hipocresía. Si no se toma ninguna de las acciones mencionadas anteriormente, es similar a devolver las redirecciones al mismo atraso de mantenimiento en el que ya estaban, lo que no da como resultado ningún progreso para mejorar la enciclopedia. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 18:47, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué las historias relevantes deberían ir a la AFD? Nadie está defendiendo que se vuelvan a incluir los artículos específicos de los personajes, por lo que no tiene sentido que se incluyan en la AFD; es un asunto que compete a la RFD.
En cuanto a la categoría de mantenimiento, estoy seguro de que hay literalmente miles de redirecciones que "deberían" estar en esa categoría, pero que en realidad son inofensivas y "útiles" y se mantendrían en discusiones RFD hipotéticas con mucha asistencia. Habitualmente tenemos redirecciones menores por una variedad de razones, incluida la preservación de los historiales de las páginas y la utilidad. RFD Keep #5 es bastante directo: si desea mejorar la enciclopedia, simplemente permita que existan redirecciones útiles pero menores. Están bien. SnowFire ( discusión ) 02:42, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es broma que esto es de RfD y no de AfD. Sin embargo, la forma en que te has referido a estas redirecciones me hace creer que la existencia de estas redirecciones anteriormente como artículos o que se mencionaran en el objetivo antes valida su existencia como redirecciones. Ese no es el caso, causa problemas y no tengo ganas de repetir mis argumentos que expresé antes, que siguen siendo válidos y refutan este punto. Mi comentario de AfD estaba dirigido a los votos de "mantener" anteriores, pero preferiría que estas redirecciones se eliminaran de inmediato. Las redirecciones no están "bien" y actualmente no son "útiles" ya que los lectores no encontrarán nada sobre los temas de las redirecciones en el objetivo. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 05:07, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, véase WP:RSURPRISE , que se aplica totalmente aquí debido a la falta de menciones en el artículo de destino. (Nota relacionada: uno pensaría que yo, un editor que trabaja principalmente con redirecciones durante más de una década, conocería Wikipedia:Redirect lo suficientemente bien como para saber de la existencia de la sección vinculada desde el acceso directo mencionado anteriormente... bueno, acabo de descubrirlo... 😅) Steel1943 ( discusión ) 16:56 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borra la mayoría por Steel1943. La mayoría de estos nunca tuvieron fuentes, y todos estos que existieron como artículos lo fueron por alrededor de un año o menos, pero algunos fueron creados como redirecciones. Los que tenían fuentes, y por eso soy neutral entre restaurar o eliminar (pero me opongo a mantener como redirecciones a un artículo que no los analiza) son: Barbarossa Rugner , Camille (Suikoden) , Georg Prime (también podría redireccionarse a George Prime ), Windy (Suikoden) y la familia Silverberg . Nash Latkje parecía tener una fuente, pero es un enlace roto (no tiene el formato correcto en Wikipedia), así que tal vez caiga en la misma categoría. Kraze tenía una fuente, pero también parece que podría referirse a muchas cosas, por ejemplo, Kraze United o un error ortográfico de craze , así que tampoco estoy seguro de eso, tal vez algún tipo de dab. A7V2 ( discusión ) 01:14 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Demasiados para revisar. Renominar en fragmentos más pequeños o individualmente. Pero puedo comenzar a revisar uno a la vez. 1. Alen (Suikoden): eliminé el enlace entrante de la página de Alen. Elimínelo si no hay contenido que valga la pena fusionar o restáurelo y AfD. Jay 💬 09:45, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
2. Apple (Suikoden): eliminar si no hay contenido que valga la pena fusionar, o restaurar y AfD. Jay 💬 16:06, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
3. Barbarossa Rugner es un {{ R from merge }} , que se fusionó con la Lista de personajes de Suikoden I y ahora está en el historial de Lista de personajes de Suikoden. Jay 💬 17:39, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
4. Bright (Suikoden): he eliminado el enlace entrante de la página de Bright. Elimínelo porque no tenemos información sobre el objetivo ni sobre enwiki. Jay 💬 16:07, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
5. Camille (Suikoden): eliminar si no hay contenido que valga la pena fusionar, o restaurar y AfD. Jay 💬 11:49, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borren todo por ahora, ya que no se mencionan. Espero que se vuelva a crear una lista de personajes con mejores fuentes. Si alguien quiere encargarse de esa tarea, agradecería una restauración para ese propósito. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 23:16 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Laila Bonita

Laila Bonita → La Isla Bonita (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona esta ni ninguna otra portada indonesia (según el resumen de la edición) en el artículo. Xeroctic ( discusión ) 15:23 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre; no hay menciones de tal cobertura en ninguna parte de WP. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 16:31 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

gitano

Gitanos → Pueblo romaní ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitanos → Pueblo romaní ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitano → Pueblo romaní ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitanos → Pueblo romaní (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitanos → Pueblo romaní (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitano → Pueblo romaní ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gyp (jerga) → Pueblo romaní (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gypsey → Pueblo romaní (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Gitanos → Pueblo romaní (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Los gitanos → Pueblo romaní ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Actualmente, está dirigido a la población romaní . Término controvertido, considerado un insulto por un grupo considerable de personas. Nombres de la población romaní #Gypsy y gitano sería un mejor objetivo, que analiza mejor los términos. También hay una desambiguación: Gypsy (desambiguación) . Bug Ghost 🦗👻 12:01, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

RfD anteriores para esta redirección y redirecciones similares:

Wikipedia: Redirecciones para discusión / Registro / 20 de noviembre de 2022 § Gitanos - retarget

Oponerse . Insulto o no, ese es el tema/significado principal. Wikipedia es WP:NOTCENSORED . Ver Nigger . Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 12:18 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sugiero eliminación o censura, solo redirigir a un artículo que analiza el término, en lugar del grupo objetivo del insulto (como el ejemplo que publicas, ese es un artículo que analiza el insulto en sí , no es una redirección al grupo de personas al que está dirigido el insulto) Bug Ghost 🦗👻 12:21, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No hay ningún artículo sobre el insulto en sí, pero los romaníes lo mencionan en la introducción y lo comentan con cierta extensión. Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 12:28 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sería muy útil un artículo que analizara el término. Si alguien quiere empezar a escribir un artículo de este tipo, estaría dispuesto a ayudar y podría publicarlo en Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias . Yuchitown ( talk ) 16:06 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

(ec) Redirigir Gyp (jerga) , que no se refiere a los romaníes, a algo como Scam . Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 12:24 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Notaré que citar WP:NOTCENSORED en este caso está generando problemas con WP:UPPERCASE , vea WP:UPPERCASE#WP:NOTCENSORED . El ensayo correcto para citar aquí es en cambio WP:RNEUTRAL como lo tengo a continuación. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 14:41 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantén todo como se indica en WP:RNEUTRAL . Una vez más, explicaré por qué mantenemos las redirecciones de insultos como estas en dos partes, aunque incluiré una tercera parte.

Como se indica en WP:RNEUTRAL , las redirecciones tienen mucho más margen de maniobra que el resto de la enciclopedia en lo que respecta a la neutralidad, porque son casi invisibles, excepto cuando se utilizan activamente (o se mencionan en notas de sombrero/texto en negrita, como en WP:RASTONISH ). Nadie va a empezar en Romani people y terminar en Gypsy debido a la redirección en sí , a menos que se esfuercen por comprobar la página Special:WhatLinksHere/Romani_people .
Las redirecciones no neutrales también sirven como una herramienta de enseñanza importante. Digamos que un usuario vio El jorobado de Notre Dame (película de 1996) , que tiene una gran presencia del pueblo romaní en la trama, pero utiliza constantemente la palabra gitano para referirse a ellos y no tiene prácticamente ninguna otra información sobre ellos. El usuario va a Wikipedia y escribe gitano en la barra de búsqueda. ¿No le vendría bien que lo llevaran al artículo sobre el pueblo romaní y le enseñaran que el término correcto y neutral para referirse a ellos es romaní?
Y, por último, en el caso de estas redirecciones en particular, es probable que la gente no busque gitano para encontrar una discusión sobre el término en sí, sino que busque gitano para encontrar una discusión sobre los romaníes. Por lo tanto, el párrafo de apertura de Romani_people , que ya habla del término gitano y de cómo es un exónimo que se considera un insulto, es más que suficiente para evitar WP:RASTONISH y abordar el punto 2 anterior. Como mínimo, puede que se justifique un enlace más accesible en algún lugar de ese párrafo que apunte a Nombres del pueblo romaní#Gypsy y gipsy ; sin embargo, el objetivo actual de la redirección definitivamente va al lugar correcto.

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 13:03 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantén todo según Lunamann. El término está descrito en el objetivo actual, por lo que no parece haber una necesidad urgente de volver a apuntar. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 13:57, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar Gyp (jerga) por falta de un objetivo que explique su significado, segunda opción: redirigir a Wikcionario. Mantener el resto , en su mayoría según Lunamann, pero añadir Nombres del pueblo romaní#Gypsy y gitano a hatnote . El hecho de que este término siga siendo utilizado por muchos miembros de la comunidad en cuestión, y para bien o para mal por muchos que no lo utilizan, hace que el artículo sobre el concepto, en lugar de sobre la palabra, sea el mejor objetivo, pero ambos son plausibles. -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 17:06, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Definitivamente no agregues insultos a las notas de sombrero. Eso solo los resalta más. Yuchitown ( discusión ) 17:49 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La nota del sombrero ya dice "Gitano", "Gitanos", "Gipsy" y "Gipsies" redirige aquí. Esto es sólo una cuestión de lo que viene después de eso. -- Tamzin^{[ cetáceo necesario ]} ( they|xe ) 20:34, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

El objetivo de las redirecciones es beneficiar a los lectores. Si buscan información sobre personas romaníes a las que todavía se les suele llamar gitanos, la encontrarán. Si buscan información sobre el término en sí, esa información se proporciona allí. Gyp (jerga) es una redirección con historia, por lo que una redirección a Wikcionario podría ser mejor. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 17:53, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirección suave de Gyp (jerga) a Wikcionario (tiene múltiples usos no relacionados con el objetivo actual). Conservar el resto según Lunamann et al. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 19:51 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ya sea un insulto o no, "gitano" es un término igual o más reconocible que "roma". Especialmente en algunos países, como Hungría, donde "gitano" o su variante regional (cigany) son el término oficial para referirse a este grupo de personas, incluso entre ellos mismos. Además, según User:Tamzin , términos relacionados como "gitanos" y "gitano", además de términos en otros idiomas como la página Cigan también redirigen a personas romaníes y están incluidos en la nota. Eliminar o redirigir la página también requerirá que se arreglen muchos enlaces en muchos artículos. VojvodaStranih ( discusión ) 00:09 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep : Estoy de acuerdo con los puntos de Keep que se mencionaron anteriormente. Soy neutral en cuanto a Gyp (jerga) si la gente quiere hacer algo más con eso. Schützenpanzer (discusión) 01:26 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Keep : Creo que es mucho más probable que si alguien busca "gitano" esté buscando a las personas a las que se refiere esa palabra, aunque sea ofensiva, en lugar de una discusión sobre la palabra en sí y si es un insulto, etc. Además, el tema se analiza en el segundo párrafo del prólogo. Cremastra — discusión — c 01:44, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Conservar la mayor parte según Lunamann; redirección suave de Gyp (jerga) a wikt:gyp#English (segunda opción, eliminar). J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:08, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantén la mayor parte de lo anterior, redirige suavemente Gyp (jerga) a Wikitionary, ya que es allí donde el usuario encontrará esta palabra como jerga hasta que tengamos contenido enciclopédico sobre ella. Fieari ( discusión ) 04:19 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Jamie Jungers

Jamie Jungers → Tiger Woods#TWInfidelity (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona en el objetivo. (Como se muestra a continuación, las redirecciones de personas parecen un poco más urgentes que la mayoría de las redirecciones a un artículo sin mención ). jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 01:42, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Buscando otras menciones en Wikipedia: el artículo del índice del conjunto Jungers dice que es una mujer asociada con Tiger Woods , y se la describe tangencialmente como una de las supuestas amantes de Tiger Woods en Be-Shure § Notes and Dog's Most Wanted § ep6 . Be-Shure solo cita guías de televisión para esa afirmación, y la otra no está citada. Dado que no hay un buen objetivo en otro lugar, creo que la redirección debería eliminarse a menos que se agregue una mención que satisfaga WP:BLP a Tiger Woods . jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 04:18, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar redirección que viola la ley BLP y que no tiene mucho sentido. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 17:55 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Srishti

Srishti → Unidades de tiempo hindúes ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Comentario: El término sánscrito significa "creación".[12] Las unidades de tiempo hindúes no hablan realmente de la creación como lo haría la cosmología hindú , sino más bien de unidades de tiempo que pueden asociarse a personalidades ( Brahma ) involucradas en la creación. Jroberson108 ( discusión ) 02:29 9 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! 09:18, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Japeto

Japetus → Iapetus (luna) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No hay ninguna razón aparente por la que esta ortografía no tenga el mismo tema principal que Iapetus . Me atrevería a redirigir el mensaje, pero ha sido una redirección a la luna durante 18 años con una nota de sombrero; parece que vale la pena discutirlo primero. Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 07:00, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No hay ninguna razón, por supuesto , redirigir el nombre y eliminar la nota del artículo sobre la luna después. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 09:50 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retarget por nombre. Double sharp ( discusión ) 11:37 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retarget por nom. J 947 ‡ ^edits 05:37, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comente si se redirecciona, se deben crear las redirecciones entre paréntesis apropiadas para la luna -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 11:22 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sustituido

Sustituido → Reacción de sustitución (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Incluso con mi sesgo hacia la química, siento que esto es demasiado amplio para redirigirlo a su objetivo actual. Si el uso de la química es realmente primario, probablemente sustituyente sería un mejor objetivo. Redirigir a sustituto , redirigir suavemente a Wikcionario o eliminarlo pueden ser mejores opciones. Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 02:03, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retarget por nombre; etiqueta {{ R del verbo }} y {{ R del adjetivo }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:05 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Hacia dónde se dirige el retarget? Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 03:22 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lo siento, lo omití, lo sustituí por (desambiguación) -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 02:44 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar para sustituir (desambiguación) según lo indicado anteriormente. Tevildo ( discusión ) 07:47 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Β-aminoetilamina

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: eliminación rápida

Wikipedia:PCR

Wikipedia:PCR → Wikipedia:Cómo escribir mejores artículos#Proporcionar contexto para el lector (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

¿Qué piensan los editores sobre un redireccionamiento a Wikipedia:Revisión de cambios pendientes ? En mi experiencia, he visto a menudo que se utiliza esta sigla para referirse al grupo de usuarios revisores de cambios pendientes , y absolutamente nunca para esta sección de ensayo. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( suspiro ) 01:02, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se usa mucho en el espacio principal, pero creo que todo se hace a través de {{ context inline }} . Sería fácil no usar este atajo en esa plantilla. jlwoodwa ( discusión ) 01:31, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a Wikipedia:Revisando los cambios pendientes por nombre después de actualizar la plantilla para no usar el atajo. Parece que es lo que la mayoría de los usuarios estarían buscando si escribieran esto. Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 03:34, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retarget por nombre. *Pppery* _{ya ha comenzado...} 04:13, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Glenn Trumpkin

Glenn Trumpkin → Glenn Youngkin (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Amy Covid Barrett → Amy Coney Barrett (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Leningrado Lindsey → Lindsey Graham (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Pero su computadora portátil → Teoría de la conspiración Biden-Ucrania#Computadora portátil y disco duro ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Mthreegan → M3GAN (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La nominación para Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/15 de octubre de 2024 #Rapey McForehead me llevó a examinar las redirecciones pasadas de Jasonbres ( discusión · contribuciones ), que tiene una página de discusión de una milla de advertencias (incluida la redirección inexplicable del personaje de Donald Faison, Christopher Turk en Scrubs a Black Scrubs ) y un bloqueo pasado en su historial, y estos son los más inapropiados y provocativos de todos ellos, es poco probable que se utilicen, y después de que Traumnovelle ( discusión · contribuciones ) les preguntara por qué siquiera imaginarían crear una rd tan provocativa, respondió "Creo que en ese momento, era tendencia en Twitter, y creé una redirección para las personas que querían saber a quién se refería ese nombre", que para los primeros tres, no considero que los temas de tendencia de Twitter posteriores al sumidero sean una fuente de nada, mucho menos material de redireccionamiento. El último es simplemente una tontería, pero los tres primeros son innegables violaciones de WP:BLP , mientras que la referencia a la computadora portátil es solo para personas que están en línea sin parar (en relación con un contrapunto de "marca azul" a esto ). Nate • ( charla ) 00:58, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Glen Trumpkin se utiliza en RS: [13] [14] y, aunque no es un nombre neutral, no creo que sea una violación de la BLP, aunque la falta de visitas sugiere que esta redirección no es útil y no vale la pena la falta de neutralidad. No es como si estos artículos no estuvieran utilizando su nombre completo.

'Amy Covid Barnett' es una clara violación del BLP, el único resultado de búsqueda que obtengo es un foro lleno de comentarios ofensivos sobre Barnett.

Aquí se utiliza 'Leningrad Lindsey': [15] y tiene 53 páginas vistas, por lo que podría ser una redirección no neutral aceptable, aunque el RS identifica claramente su nombre completo.

Los dos últimos son términos de búsqueda muy poco probables, como lo demuestran sus 6 visitas en el último año.

Borra todo excepto Leningrad Lindsey, donde soy neutral en cuanto a mantenerlo por ahora. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 01:12 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario : no creo que el último sea una tontería y, en mi opinión, debería separarse del resto de redirecciones a políticos. Deberíamos discutir las redirecciones en función de sus méritos individuales, no agruparlas en función de suposiciones sobre el creador. "Mthreegan" es un nombre hablado muy común para la película. (Además, el bloqueo fue durante 24 horas en 2008. Dejando de lado las advertencias recientes y las solicitudes de autorización, espero que uno pueda considerar ese evento como algo muy pasado). Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 01:16, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borra los tres primeros por ser chistes inverosímiles (ni siquiera vale la pena llamarlos juegos de palabras) y por no ser redirecciones de ataque lo suficientemente notables (incluso si hay fuentes, también mencionarán sus nombres reales, por lo que no tiene sentido), el cuarto por "solo encontré comentarios diversos en reddit", y mantén el quinto como una ortografía fonética lo suficientemente plausible. No me sorprendería si los primeros tres también fueran elegibles para g10

¿"Pero su computadora portátil" es el equivalente político de "Pero la rata, me robó mis documentos" ? cogsan _{(me regaña) (me acecha)} 12:11 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Borrar todo excepto Leningrad Lindsey y Mthreegan , por Traumnovelle y Utopes. Creador de Trout, espero que esto no sea WP:NEELIX 2.0 Bug Ghost 🦗👻 12:47, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario Afortunadamente no, pero su humor cuando crean redirecciones es un poco irritante y hay que controlarlo. Nate • ( charla ) 22:27, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantenga a Mthreegan como se indica arriba. Neutral en lo que respecta a los demás. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:00, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar todo . De todos modos, ninguno de ellos parece un término de búsqueda plausible. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 18:32 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Beta-etilfenetilamina

Beta-etilfenetilamina → Β-Metilfenetilamina (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Esto indica un compuesto diferente al objetivo (uno con un átomo de carbono adicional, etilo en lugar de metilo ), uno para el cual enwiki no parece tener ningún contenido (ver C10H15N , en comparación con el objetivo C9H13N ). Borrar. Mdewman6 ( discusión ) 00:48 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre. Es una sustancia química diferente, que se conoce pero no parece lo suficientemente notable como para merecer un artículo. DMacks ( discusión ) 05:38 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Raad 1

Ra'ad 1 → RAAD (misil guiado antitanque) (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Cuanto más investigo sobre esta redirección, más confuso me siento. Para empezar, esta redirección anteriormente apuntaba al artículo que se encuentra actualmente en Fajr-3 (cohete de artillería) , y lo hizo durante los últimos seis años. Sin embargo, antes de eso, esta redirección apuntaba al artículo al que apunta actualmente. Sin embargo, para generar un poco más de confusión, existe otro artículo con un título similar, Raad-1 . Es posible que ya haya descubierto un mejor plan para qué hacer con esta redirección si no fuera por sus enlaces entrantes; no tengo claro a qué tema se refieren estos enlaces. Creo que desambiguar es el camino a seguir aquí, pero no tengo muy claro cuál debería ser el título base para una página de desambiguación de este tipo. Steel1943 ( discusión ) 00:41, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario Tanto RAAD (misil guiado antitanque) como Raad-1 dicen que se refieren a Thunder y Thunder-1; mientras que Fajr-3 (cohete de artillería) parece referirse a Aurora-3 o Dawn-3. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:09 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

15 de octubre

Centros de educación y formación profesional

Centros de formación y educación vocacional → Campos de internamiento de Xinjiang (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La definición de centros de formación y educación vocacional es muy vaga y lo primero que me viene a la cabeza no es China. Dr vulpes (discusión) 04:59 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

~~Reorientar a Escuela vocacional~~ . Supongo que los campos de internamiento recibieron un apodo en algún momento, posiblemente como eufemismo para evitar la censura, pero parece que este término de búsqueda debería dirigirse únicamente al objetivo más obvio. Fieari ( discusión ) 06:22 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a la escuela vocacional . Creo que esta descripción se ha utilizado para los campos de Xinjiang, pero ciertamente no solo para ese tema, por lo que el objetivo actual es, en el mejor de los casos, demasiado limitado. — Mx. Granger ( discusión · contribuciones ) 13:48, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Para mí, lo más lógico es reorientar el programa a una escuela vocacional . Dr vulpes (discusión) 22:08 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reorientar a la escuela vocacional según lo mencionado anteriormente -- Lenticel ^{( discusión )} 02:10 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantén . El artículo dice claramente, en un fragmento de texto con fuentes, en la primera oración del artículo, "oficialmente llamados centros de educación y formación profesional". El artículo Escuela vocacional no menciona la frase "centro de educación y formación profesional". Si quieres, pon una nota más acertada en el objetivo, pero "lo primero que se me ocurre" no suele ser una buena forma de determinar un WP:PRIMARYTOPIC . Shhhnotsoloud ( discusión ) 10:29 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgase al día con Shhhnotsoloud. Es muy probable que alguien que escriba "centros de formación y educación vocacional" en la barra de búsqueda esté buscando la institución china. feminist🩸 ( discusión ) 03:50 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:¿Reorientar o conservar?
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. ¡Gracias, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:06, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Manténgase al día con la nota de sombrero según Shhhnotsoloud y feminista. Si bien el nombre real de estos campamentos es "Centros de educación y capacitación vocacional", lo que significa que probablemente este sea el tema principal, este puede ser un lugar bastante WP:ASTONISHing para terminar si no sabía sobre ellos. Afortunadamente, Wikipedia tiene una herramienta útil para esta situación:
"Centros de educación y capacitación vocacional" redirige aquí. Para la institución que dicen ser estos campamentos, consulte Escuela vocacional .
Tal vez dé una segunda pasada sobre cómo escribir esto realmente. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 02:07 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sabes qué... Podría aceptarlo. El nombre me parece sorprendente, pero la nota en el sombrero debería ser suficiente. Cambio mi voto a Mantener con nota en el sombrero . Fieari ( discusión ) 23:30 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se volvió a poner en venta para generar una discusión más exhaustiva y un consenso más claro.
Comentario sobre la nueva publicación:el consenso parece inclinarse por mantenerla.
Agregue nuevos comentarios debajo de este aviso. Gracias, C F A 💬 00:03, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Me opongo a que se mantenga en el objetivo actual. Hay muchos otros temas que utilizan el término y no veo evidencia de que este sea el tema principal para la redirección [16] [17] [18]

Además, @Lunamann , esa sugerencia de la nota de sombrero es una clara violación del punto de vista de la audiencia. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 00:08, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Por eso mencioné que podría ser una buena idea tener una segunda versión de cómo escribirlo. A menos que la violación del NPOV se deba simplemente a que tiene la nota en el sombrero en primer lugar, en lugar de la frase "... afirma ser...", en cuyo caso no sé cómo complacerte jajaja 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 13:09 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

REtarget to Training centre -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 03:15 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Wikipedia:CBOT

Wikipedia:CBOT → Usuario:Bot de citas (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

¿Podría referirse también a cluebot ng o cluebot 3 ? cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 22:08, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo . Claro, pero los atajos suelen ser ambiguos. Otros editores pueden activar el bot de citas, por lo que tiene sentido que sea un atajo en lugar de Cluebot. -- T avix⁽^discusión⁾ 23:11 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener . Por Tavix. Las redirecciones de acceso directo generalmente se deben dejar intactas a menos que haya evidencia real de que causan problemas, especialmente porque se pueden agregar notas para reducir cualquier posible confusión (sobre lo cual agregaré una nota a WP:COSMETICBOT y WP:CONTEXTBOT si esta RfD se cierra como se mantiene y no hay objeciones). Thryduulf ( discusión ) 00:34 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo como creador. Tavix ya explicó cuál fue mi razonamiento. También estoy de acuerdo con Thryduulf en que se pueden agregar notas de sombrero si se mantiene la redirección actual. — CX Zoom [él/él] ^{( hablemos • { C • X })} 03:04, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Cómo se llama un egipcio?

Camina como un egipcio → Camina como un egipcio ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
Camina como un egipcio → Camina como un egipcio (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

No se menciona el fandub alemán en el objetivo. No encontré fuentes confiables para ello, por lo que un borrador no parece una decisión plausible. Originalmente era una producción que no llegó a ninguna parte, por lo que se criticó un año después, presumiblemente por no tener fuentes. cogsan _{(regáchame) (acechame)} 20:31, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar según WP:RLANG . 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 21:51 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar : La canción no tiene afinidad con el alemán. Volver a la discografía de Die Ärzte como se muestra a continuación (olvidé que existían por un segundo). Schützenpanzer (discusión) 23:19 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¿Por qué no redirigir al grupo Die Ärzte ? Se redirigió al artículo como una fusión, pero no sé si realmente se fusionó algo. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 04:10 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Probablemente no haya suficiente fuente. Tampoco se menciona allí, pero en su discografía cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:02, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Volver a la discografía de Die Ärzte donde se menciona una canción con este nombre. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:01, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Violador McForehead

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . El resultado fue: Eliminación rápida según WP:CSD#G10 .

Lo siento, Dave, me temo que no puedo hacer eso.

Lo siento, Dave, me temo que no puedo hacer eso. → HAL 9000 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Según Wikipedia:Redirecciones_para_discusión/Log/2024_April_19#Lo_siento_Dave . No estoy convencido de que la eliminación haya sido la solución correcta, pero esta redirección debería sufrir la misma suerte. *Pppery* _{ha comenzado...} 18:08, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Fuerte, mantén la calma . Afortunadamente, no estamos obligados a ningún consenso, así que cuando una discusión previa se equivoca, no estamos obligados a repetirla. Esta es una cita muy notable, de hecho es la cita más notable de todo el trabajo. Hay posibles argumentos de que "Lo siento Dave" podría ser ambiguo (no he buscado para ver si lo es en la práctica), pero para toda la cita, cada uno de los resultados en las primeras 8 páginas de Google para I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that -Wikipedia -Wikiquote(ni siquiera la frase exacta) son sobre la película, sobre la línea de la película o hacen referencia (casi siempre explícitamente) a la línea de la película. La gente está usando esta redirección (a veces aparece varias veces al día) y el objetivo es inequívoco, por lo que la eliminación sería perjudicial. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 19:50, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo como Thryduulf. Incluso si no se menciona explícitamente en los artículos reales, esta es, como señala Thryduulf, la cita más notable de todo el trabajo, una cita casi sinónimo del personaje de HAL 9000 en sí. Eliminar esta redirección o dirigirla a cualquier otro lugar sería un gran perjuicio para los lectores. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 21:55 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminación severa por parte de Lunamann... de abril, durante la discusión anterior. Lo que estoy leyendo en ESTA discusión, en base a lo que se ha dicho hasta ahora, son afirmaciones sin fundamento de "tener la mayor notoriedad" sin ninguna fuente o evidencia en particular que respalde la afirmación "es la cita más notable de toda la obra". "Sinónimo de todo el personaje en sí", ¡nada menos! Según la información que aparece en nuestras páginas de Wikipedia, Hal 9000 y sus fuentes confiables, no lo es. Hay entre 8 y 10 citas en el objetivo que se mencionan, CON fuentes y suficiente importancia presunta para aparecer en prosa, pero ninguna es esta, y ninguna de ellas tiene redirecciones.

¿Es realmente la cita más notable de toda la obra? ¡Realmente excelente! Este contenido podría mejorar la enciclopedia. ¿Debe haber alguna manera de verificar esta afirmación a partir de una fuente confiable? Si tuviera que escribir esto como una cita significativa, para empezar, sin duda querría leer sobre la cita ESPECÍFICAMENTE, porque ese es exactamente el término de búsqueda que escribí, pero ese artículo no existe en este momento. Por lo tanto, nos gustaría alentar a los lectores a agregar material que no tenemos, según WP:REDLINK . Para un artículo independiente, una estructura como ¡ Nuestra princesa está en otro castillo! podría funcionar. Definitivamente lo hemos hecho antes. Pero tal vez este tema de cita se pueda tratar en una página diferente y no tenga que ser independiente si las fuentes no están a la altura. Si tuviera que elegir un personaje para terminar, personalmente querría ir a un artículo sobre "Dave" (porque ese es el nombre que escribí a propósito). No escribí HAL 9000. Si hubiera querido HAL 9000, yo (y cualquiera que quisiera encontrar HAL 9000) habría escrito "HAL 9000", lo cual evito deliberadamente al escribir 9 palabras, ninguna de las cuales contiene "HAL" y ninguna de las cuales contiene "9000". El término de búsqueda es, para todos los tiempos y propósitos, un tema totalmente separado. Una cita. No un personaje. Y no existe nada para ello en Wikipedia, al parecer.

Si esta cita es tan importante como se afirma aquí, parece que sería un jonrón tener ALGO, en ALGÚN lugar, relacionado con esta cita. Pero, hasta donde yo sé, no lo tenemos, en ningún lado. No lo tuvimos en enero. No lo tuvimos en abril. Y casi un año después, tampoco en octubre. Así que la única conclusión que se puede sacar de la historia, dado que ni siquiera Lunamann quiso salvar esto en abril, es que esta cita no debe valer la pena. (Obviamente, esto no es cierto, porque la cita ES "importante" y probablemente notable, ¡posiblemente incluso alcance notoriedad independiente! Pero Wikipedia no está tratando de "corregir los errores" de una falta de cobertura. Solo podemos informar y redirigir en función del material que está contenido aquí en Wikipedia . No lo que queremos que contenga. Esto es independientemente de si es "importante", pero no se menciona todavía). La forma de indicar que hay un vacío en la cobertura de Wikipedia que debe llenarse es un enlace rojo. Esta redirección no tiene ningún historial valioso. SIEMPRE se puede recrear una vez que alguien sienta que es necesario discutir esta cita potencialmente notable en la enciclopedia en línea más grande. Lo que seguramente sucederá eventualmente, especialmente si la "cita es sinónimo del objetivo en sí". Pero no necesita suceder ahora. Estamos en WP:NORUSH para terminarlo. Y mientras tanto, las personas que buscan una cita y no terminan en material directamente relacionado con su término de búsqueda, seguramente serán engañadas, ya que Wikipedia no es, no funciona como, ni se anuncia como un servicio de "escriba una cita y obtenga el personaje que la dijo sin ninguna mención del término de búsqueda que usó porque no es lo suficientemente 'importante' como para ser cubierto en la página de destino en la que terminó". El contenido del artículo dicta las redirecciones que deberían existir. No al revés. Recree la redirección una vez que se agregue una mención con fuente, en algún lugar de Wikipedia, porque no hay ninguna en este momento... excepto una.

Alternativamente, redirija a Love and Rocket , donde se analiza la cita y se vincula fácilmente a HAL 9000. Pero supongo que la gente probablemente no querría eso. Bueno. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 00:29, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo . Se hace referencia a él en un artículo de la conferencia Human-Agent Interaction de 2017, "Lo siento, Dave, me temo que no puedo hacer eso: percepción y expectativas de los chatbots"; un artículo de ACMI (museo) , "2001: A Space Odyssey – 'Lo siento, Dave. Me temo que no puedo hacer eso'"; y un artículo de la revista Sound & Vision , "Lo siento, Dave, me temo que no puedo hacer eso". ("Lo siento, Dave" era demasiado ambiguo para sobrevivir. Ese no es el caso aquí). Clarityfiend ( discusión ) 12:42, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mantener : no es necesaria la mención para que la redirección responda a la pregunta más probable del lector ("¿de dónde es esto?"). Con respecto a REDLINK, creo que es poco probable que pueda sobrevivir a AfD (como lo demuestra su falta de discusión significativa en el espacio principal). J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:23, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar a menos que/hasta que se agregue una mención. Si esta cita es tan importante, entonces debería estar en el artículo. Sin ella, esta redirección es confusa y no resulta útil. A7V2 ( discusión ) 11:52 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Trabajadores

Discusión cerrada , ver discusión completa . Resultado: cierre de procedimiento

Ley judía tradicional

Ley judía tradicional → Halajá (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Error ortográfico poco probable (la ortografía correcta también es una redirección) Naraht ( discusión ) 17:01 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario: es una transposición simple de caracteres adyacentes (an por na), lo cual es una forma muy probable de error tipográfico -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 17:59 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar Error tipográfico plausible pero no hay suficientes visitas (1 en el último año) para justificar el mantenimiento requerido. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 20:04 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar , "tradicional" no es difícil de escribir; intercambiar vocales y consonantes cambia la fonética, lo que hace que esta sea inverosímil. Utopes _{( discusión / cont )} 00:41 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como error ortográfico, estoy de acuerdo en que esto es inverosímil. Como error tipográfico, es muy plausible: tanto ny se escriben (al menos en un teclado QWERTY) con la mano derecha, mientras que se escribe con la izquierda; atar una secuencia derecha-izquierda-derecha en lugar de una secuencia derecha-derecha-izquierda es uno de los tipos de error tipográfico más comunes que cometen los mecanógrafos. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 01:07 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]oa
Eliminar . Sí, es un error tipográfico, no de ortografía, pero hay innumerables variaciones de transposiciones de letras y otros errores similares y simples que también son igualmente probables. No hay ninguna razón en particular por la que este exista. El historial de la página muestra que se creó un día antes que el que tiene la ortografía correcta, por lo que claramente se hizo por accidente. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 10:07 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Vulcano-Hércules

Vulkan-Hercules → Energia (cohete)#Vulkan (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

La redirección debe eliminarse a menos que se agregue información sobre Vulkan-Hercules a esa página y se indique su fuente. Como el objetivo de redirección existe hoy en día, se menciona un concepto de diseño futuro ( Vulkan ); pero no se menciona Vulkan-Hercules ni Hercules en ninguna parte del artículo. N2e ( discusión ) 16:29 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Shanker se quedó sin palabras

Shanker jadapa → Shankar (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Originalmente creado como una redirección de spam de BLP para Shanker (ahora un apellido deshabilitado) como se ve aquí: [19]. No sirve como una redirección de spam. Gotitbro ( discusión ) 10:25 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar ninguna página de desambiguación contiene a alguien llamado Shanker jadapa Ca ^¡háblame!15:23 15 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Raffaella Aleotti (Q3929201)

Raffaella Aleotti (Q3929201) → Vittoria Aleotti (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Término de búsqueda inverosímil. El ID entre corchetes es el ID de un elemento de Wikidata. - MPGuy2824 ( discusión ) 09:35 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por nombre. En muchas ocasiones anteriores hemos acordado que este tipo de redirecciones no son útiles. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:14 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Borrar solo existe desde julio y siempre ha sido una redirección y hasta donde yo sé el consenso parece ser que tales redirecciones deberían eliminarse pero tal vez la búsqueda debería modificarse para mostrar el artículo cuando se busca un elemento de Wikidata pero tenga en cuenta que un elemento de Wikidata no es estático porque puede cambiar a partir de fusiones o divisiones aunque no se supone que un elemento se reutilice para un tema diferente un tema puede cambiar un elemento de Wikidata. Crouch, Swale ( discusión ) 19:59, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar . Observando que existe 1012 ( hist · log ) para rastrear páginas creadas con dichos títulos. La mayoría son artículos y se mueven sin redireccionamiento. Veo otra redirección allí; la revisaré en breve. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed ]} ( they|xe ) 08:44, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Heavy está muerto

Heavy ha muerto → Team Fortress 2 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

Vídeo popular en las comunidades de TF2, pero no se menciona en el artículo. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 05:36 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar según WP:RETURNTORED . No hay información presente en el artículo; si alguien tiene información sobre esto, puede crear una página o sección al respecto en algún lugar. Hasta que eso suceda, no necesitamos esta redirección. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:09, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

matar por lunamann. no hay prejuicios contra la recreación heavy está muerto aquí cogsan _{(me regaña) (me acecha)} 13:10, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Es muy gracioso cómo esta redirección pensó que era un buen día para no ser eliminada. ¡PUM! Te eliminaron (según Lunamann). mwwv ^converse ∫ _edits 16:40, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Encontraré al eliminador, lo capturaré y no se eliminará ninguna redirección nunca más. cogsan _{(me regañan) (me acechan)} 16:49, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Podcast sobre crímenes reales

Podcast sobre crímenes reales → Podcast (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

¿Crímenes reales o podcasts ? La página de podcasts definitivamente no dice nada sobre crímenes reales. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:20 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Retargeting to True crime#Podcasts BugGhost 🦗👻 06:48, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a Bugghost. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:15 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Retarget por Bugghost. Para que conste, el podcast sobre crímenes reales definitivamente debería ser un artículo independiente: es un gran ejemplo del tipo de tema amplio que no tiene un artículo a pesar de la considerable literatura al respecto. J 947 ‡ ^edits 00:27, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Cable SHOUTcast

SHOUTcast Wire → Podcast (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

¿Qué tiene esto que ver específicamente con el podcasting en general? Cabe señalar que Shoutcast tiene su propia página. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:11 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar Probablemente esta era una versión muy temprana de una "lista de los 10 mejores" de podcasts y estaciones de radio en línea que ahora son principalmente competencia de Apple y Spotify. No tiene una utilidad real en 2024. Nate • ( charla ) 20:23, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mongoloides americanos

Mongoloides americanos → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Esto va a ser muy controvertido si se mantiene (en el objetivo actual). TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:05 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantener la etiqueta como {{ R de nombre obsoleto }} y {{ R de nombre no neutral }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:12 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Paquete con la versión singular. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 14:20 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En primer lugar

Primero → 1 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
En segundo lugar → 2 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]
En tercer lugar → 3 (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/reorientar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Eliminar No es un término que deba incluirse en un wikilink. Si los lectores quisieran un artículo sobre 1, buscarían uno, no una derivación de él. Tiene pocas visitas a la página, por lo que no apoyo una redirección suave, ya que Wikipedia no es un diccionario . ^¡háblame!15:35, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Agrupado en segundo lugar, en tercer lugar. Experto en separación de palabras ( discusión ) 11:55 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Primero (desambiguación) / Segundo (desambiguación) / Tercero (desambiguación) -- respectivamente ; como {{ R de adverbio }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 13:02 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar (todo) . La página de DAB no es apropiada, ya que no hay coincidencias específicas allí. Y, por lo demás, es demasiado vaga como para volver a apuntar a otro sitio. 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 19:39, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Una vez (adverbio)

Once (adverbio) → 1 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [Cierre: mantener/redirigir /eliminar ]
Dos veces (adverbio) → 2 ( discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redirigir /eliminar ]

No creo que sea buena idea una redirección relacionada con el adverbio a una página que trata específicamente sobre el número. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:01 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eliminar por el mismo motivo que el anterior . ^¡háblame!15:36 15 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Prefijo numeral de reorientación ~~#Tabla de prefijos numéricos en inglésNumerales~~ en inglés#Adverbios y adjetivos multiplicativos , como se muestra a continuación . Incluí Twice (adverbio). Experto en separación de sílabas ( discusión ) 11:28, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a Once (desambiguación) / Twice (desambiguación) -- y agregar entradas apropiadas para los adverbios, según lo indicado en wikt:en:once / wikt:en:twice -- lo que no significa "1" todo el tiempo -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 13:04 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientación a los números en inglés § Adverbios y adjetivos multiplicativos . Ambos son números adverbiales de wikt, sobre los que tenemos algo de contenido enciclopédico. El primer objetivo propuesto anteriormente simplemente no tiene sentido, y el segundo no es necesario, ya que este ya está desambiguado y no hay otro objetivo razonable. (Aunque agregar una entrada a la página dab probablemente estaría bien de cualquier manera). 35.139.154.158 ( discusión ) 15:10, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Reorientar a los numerales en inglés#Adverbios y adjetivos multiplicativos * Pppery * _{ha comenzado...} 04:15, 18 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Es esta una redirección útil? No puedo imaginar que mucha gente (si es que hay alguna) vaya a añadir "(adverbio)" a su búsqueda y este no es un término que deba incluirse en un wikilink. Las menos de 10 visitas combinadas durante un año sugieren que esta redirección está ayudando a muy pocos lectores, si es que ayuda a alguno. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 04:42 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Redirigir a numerales en inglés#Adverbios y adjetivos multiplicativos según el editor de IP. Estos son términos de búsqueda plausibles e inequívocos con contenido relevante; no hay ningún beneficio en eliminarlos. Tampoco entiendo por qué Traumnovelle piensa que no deberían incluirse en un wikilink. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:11 18 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Linjian

Linjian → Lista de las divisiones a nivel de municipio de Shandong (discusión · enlaces · historia )

El nombre, que es el de una ciudad de la provincia china de Shandong, se está redirigiendo al portavoz del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de la República Popular China con el mismo nombre. O bien debería eliminarse o redirigirse a la página de destino que he indicado. Toadboy123 ( discusión ) 03:47 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

NOTA: esta es una nominación mal formada. No hay un encabezado RfD en la redirección. El objetivo actual de la redirección es Lin Jian , y no el contenido en la apertura de esta sección. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:08, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Comentario Lin Jian es definitivamente el objetivo equivocado. -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:08 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eliminar la ambigüedad consultando también Lin Jian (林剑) y Linjiang (desambiguación) ; está Linjian (临涧镇) en el condado de Pingyi , Shandong, China; está Linjian (林尘镇) en Zijin, Guangdong, China, que figura en la Lista de divisiones a nivel de municipio de Guangdong ; Chen Linjian figura en las temporadas 2020-21 y 2018-19 de la Asociación China de Baloncesto; -- 65.92.246.77 ( charla ) 04:26, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Mongoloide americano

Mongoloide americano → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historial · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

Si bien este término se ha utilizado históricamente para describir a los pueblos de las Primeras Naciones, es el equivalente a que la palabra n redirija a las personas de ascendencia africana. Incluso existe una versión en plural de esta redirección. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:46 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantener la etiqueta como {{ R de nombre obsoleto }} y {{ R de nombre no neutral }} -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:13 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Siento que, si se mantuviera, la página para el término general mongoloide debería ser al menos el objetivo. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 04:18 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Si no tuviéramos un artículo sobre la palabra nigger, probablemente se redirigiría a "Afroamericano" como un nombre histórico y no neutral. De hecho, la edición más antigua que aún se puede consultar lo muestra como una redirección.

Si debería estar dirigido a los mongoloides es un tema diferente, pero no eliminamos términos históricos porque sean ofensivos. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 05:04 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Nunca dije que esto debería eliminarse, aunque probablemente debería haber mencionado que Mongoloid sería un mejor objetivo. Es un poco chocante ver que un término no neutral redirija a un grupo étnico entero cuando ya existe un mejor objetivo. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 05:15 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Traumnovelle Espero sinceramente que no quieras decir lo que dijiste en tu primera oración. Sería una redirección absolutamente absurda, horrible y ridícula y sería un problema de WP:CIR pensar lo contrario. Piensa en las cosas antes de decirlas, especialmente en temas como los insultos raciales. BugGhost 🦗👻 14:46, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gitano es un insulto y redirige a la gente romaní . Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 19:47 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

La solicitud de decisión para esto ahora está registrada aquí - Wikipedia:Redirecciones para discusión/Registro/16 de octubre de 2024#Gypsy Bug Ghost 🦗👻 12:10, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Manténgalo como por WP:RNEUTRAL . Las redirecciones no necesitan ser neutrales, por dos razones. 1, no son visibles para la mayoría de los lectores a menos que las personas las busquen específicamente, casi nadie comenzará en Pueblos indígenas de las Américas y terminará en Mongoloid americano . 2, si alguien conoce el término no neutral pero no el término neutral, redirigirlo al término neutral lo lleva a la información solicitada, al mismo tiempo que le enseña al lector cuál es el término neutral. Notaré que lapalabra N y el insulto F tienen sus propias páginas con, en la primera oración de ambos , un enlace al grupo al que apunta cada insulto por turno, por lo que posiblemente no sean los mejores ejemplos que podría haber dado. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:03 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Esto me muestra cómo responder sin presionar actualizar después de tener la página abierta por un período prolongado, jajaja. Cambiar el voto a Retarget a Mongoloid ; aunque notaré que si el retarget falla, apoyo Keeping como una opción de respaldo. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( discusión ) 06:06, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Redirigir a Mongoloid , coincidiendo con User:Lunamann en que este es el mejor objetivo para este término obsoleto. Está publicado en literatura y en WP:Wikipediaisnotcensored , por lo que no debería eliminarse. Nota obligatoria: los pueblos indígenas de las Américas no son un grupo étnico; el término incluye a miles de grupos étnicos. Yuchitown ( discusión ) 16:03 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Indios

Indios → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

¿Se supone que esto es jerga? Ni siquiera veo ningún uso real de la palabra y, al buscarla en Google, la mayoría de los resultados se relacionan con indios reales. TeapotsOfDoom ( discusión ) 03:38 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentario: es una ortografía obsoleta. La he visto en algunos documentos y libros antiguos antes. Creo que está más relacionada con los nativos americanos que con los asiáticos del sur, al menos, los usos que he visto parecen estar relacionados con eso -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:05, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Manténgalo y etiquételo como {{ R debido a la ortografía obsoleta }} según la IP. El 100 % de las primeras seis páginas de los resultados de Google Books se relacionan con los nativos americanos. Hay una banda con este nombre que parece ser muy buena en SEO, pero no notable. Thryduulf ( discusión ) 11:20 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sigue por Thryduulf. -1ctinus📝 🗨 18:58, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantén y etiqueta según lo indicado anteriormente. Fieari ( discusión ) 01:21 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mantener la ortografía obsoleta es útil para los lectores. Traumnovelle ( discusión ) 07:53 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sabiduría india

Saberes indígenas → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

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

Comentario hay Mitologías de los pueblos indígenas de las Américas ... pero esta debería ser una página de desambiguación si se mantiene, ya que también existe el sur de Asia -- 65.92.246.77 ( discusión ) 04:30 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Pueblo norteamericano

Pueblos de América del Norte → Pueblos indígenas de las Américas (discusión · enlaces · historia · estadísticas) [ Cierre: mantener/redireccionar /eliminar ]

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 ]

Delete with no opposition to a dab if one sees it as necessary. Traumnovelle (talk) Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to North America#Demographics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to North America#Demographics without prejudice against a better target. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Контрудар: глобальное наступление

Контрудар: глобальное наступление → Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per RFOR Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Traumnovelle, and WP:RFOREIGN. There's already an equivalent on the Russian Wikipedia where the phrase "Контрудар: глобальное наступление" is definitely mentioned in the first sentence, but it doesn't exist as a title on that Wikipedia either, which further muddies the redirect's plausibility. Regards, SONIC678 06:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

КСГО

КСГО → Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines → KLM (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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."

"Steal Away." → Steal Away (Robbie Dupree song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per WP:AFFINITY as the logo doesn't use the format and could anyway as such be used for any of the other uses (so should go to the base name, the spiritual if kept) but as noted shouldn't exist anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

Ain't I a stinker? → The Abbott and Costello Show (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ain't I a stinker → Bugs Bunny (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Comment - I feel that more people know this phrase from Bugs Bunny than from Abbot and Costello. I it a plausible search term, but I'm unsure whether we should drill down and really determine if there's a WP:PTOPIC, or if we should disambiguate. I don't think deletion is a good idea due to the plausibility of someone searching for this very famous phrase. If a PTOPIC is found, hatnoting may be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Ain't I a stinker"

"Ain't I a stinker" → Bugs Bunny (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12 § "Ain't I a stinker" – no consensus

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

Diamondina

Diamondina → Β-Methylphenethylamine (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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! → The Fabelmans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Ain't no party like a diddy party

Ain't no party like a diddy party → Sean Combs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ain't no party like a Diddy party → Sean Combs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Diddy parties → Sean Combs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete first two as implausible redirects. However, I'm inclined to keep Diddy parties; the term is in fairly common use in recent conversations about Diddy and the allegations against him, enough that I can certainly envision people searching it. The term may not remain relevant in the long term, but I think it's currently likely to be useful. Neutral on whether the target should be Sean Combs or Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel → Yu-Gi-Oh! (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Keep - Demonstrably helpful, give the steady daily usage count on the stats page, just in the past month. Unambiguous target. WP:CHEAP. Don't break people's workflow just for the sake of tidyness. Fieari (talk) 02:15, 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 [20], 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: [21]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.
For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

33-4

33-4 → 2005 Japan Series (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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- ^[3] 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

^ https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/sports/commonwealth-games-2022/story/commonwealth-games-2022-indian-cyclist-meenakshi-suffers-horrific-crash-after-being-run-over-by-rival-1982944-2022-08-02
^ https://www.instagram.com/p/C6DZ9-kqgS6/?igsh=MXRlY2RjemMxbWkzdg==
^ https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=33-4&redirect=no

Question - Is this score particularly notable in baseball? I know Scorigami is a thing in football, but less so in other sports because it's more trivial to score any particular number... but on the other hand, 33 sounds particularly outstandingly high for a baseball game in my estimation. Heck, backyard whiffleball has a 10 run mercy rule. So I could see this as plausible... but I don't know baseball well enough to be sure. Fieari (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In America - Barely anyone recognizes it

In Japanese internet culture/Japan itself - Strong Yes

(Disclaimer - The "33-4" score was throughout the 4 different matches, not in a single match). The jawiki has a clear and good coverage of the internet meme associated with the series, but nobody in enwiki so far recognizes these kinds of stuff. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Lean Keep - Not entirely certain whether the English Language wikipedia should have redirects based on foreign language memes, but this may be worthwhile... I'm leaning keep for the moment. For reference, the source used by the Japanese wikipedia to support the statement that 33-4 has become an internet meme there is: [22]. It does appear to be a reliable source according to our own standards. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like the only possible ambiguity is with 29. And create 33–4 too, obvs. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is the famous 4′33″. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust a bartender with bad grammar

Never trust a bartender with bad grammar → Star Wars: Dark Forces (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Very Weak Delete - Entirely implausible search term according to google trends. Our internal stats page shows 5 hits last year, and 45 in the past 4 years, reducing my delete to a weak deletion preference... it gets SOME use. If kept, it should probably be Retargeted to Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, which google informs me is the ACTUAL source of the quote. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not on the notable side of one-liners, even from resident kell dragon puncher and one-liner machine kyle katarn cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many of us have them

How many of us have them → Friends (Whodini song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

i made this after a search delete it if its bad GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Recently made redirect won't cause problems or disruption anywhere with link rot if deleted, but it does appear to be useful to someone (above), and I do not have an objection to redirects from notable lyrics as a search aid, even when those lyrics do not appear in the article. It would be nice to leave the redirect be for a while to see if it starts collecting regular steady hits. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no good target so it's better to let readers figure out what they want for themselves in this situation, given that the lyric does not receive any coverage at any of the listed pages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have no objection to redirects from notable lyrics in principle, but – while the lyric in question is probably the most notable individual lyric from this song – I don't find myself convinced that it's recognizable enough for the redirect to be useful. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the "how many of us have them" line is sampled not just in the Bone Thugs song mentioned in the nom, but also in MF Doom's song "Deep Fried Frenz" (on the album Mm..Food). The existence of this sample didn't really affect my own !vote, but I figured it might be helpful to mention as additional context on the usage of the line. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kahako

Kahako → Macron (diacritic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kahakos → Macron (diacritic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Kahakō → Macron (diacritic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tohutō → Macron (diacritic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pōtae → Macron (diacritic) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per WP:RFOR

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

These terms are all mentioned in the article. Either keep or refine to anchors to the relevant paragraphs. Also create Tohuto and Potae as {{a2r}} / {{r from ASCII}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless ambiguous: clear and strong affinity. Would lean against refining. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

Real G's move in silence like lasagna → 6 Foot 7 Foot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete implausible Wikipedia search term evidenced by the minimal page views. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I personally find choosing a random line from the middle of a song implausible as a search term, but it has gotten 18 hits in the past year, so it sees some use-- hence a weak !vote. It still doesn't get much use. Fieari (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This line is reasonably well known in hip hop fanbases as an infamous example of a strained simile, and I can imagine someone searching the line to look up where it originated. There's certainly room to debate whether Wikipedia should be the place to facilitate those searches, which is why my !vote is just a weak one, but even so I can understand why the redirect was created. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Wilds

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Joe Tractorman

Joe Tractorman → Bill Wurtz (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

I added this redirect to be silly. If you want to delete it, feel free, but you don’t have to. lol -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not up there with damien maymdien in the list of bill wurtz characters i've seen people want to bang. i mean what cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless and not helpful. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is a deadly lazer

The sun is a deadly lazer → Bill Wurtz (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

~~Not anymore, there's a blanket!~~ Seems like one of those humorous redirects. Anyone who knows this meme usually knows about Bill Wurtz, so... unlikely search term? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget to ozone layer~~ Refine to Bill Wurtz#History of the Entire World, I Guess, which is the section detailing the video this quote came from. Anyone looking for information on this meme would be well-served to be pointed to the part of the Bill Wurtz article talking about the meme's origin. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~let's go on land~~ Support refining. The phrase is briefly mentioned in RSes—see [23]—so it's at least a somewhat useful phrase. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~but you need to go back into the water to have babies~~ Refine per Lunamann. Should probably also tag with {{R from meme}}. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~learn to use an egg~~ refine per lunamann, will see if a mention can be added (though i don't have much faith in it) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine per Lunamann. Even without a direct mention, this will provide the user the information they are looking for ("What was this quote from"). I disagree that it is implausible that someone would remember the quote and not know the name of the man who made the videos, or the name of the video-- that's not how human memories work. Fieari (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are all of these crossed-off lines inside jokes? Because I don't get them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not inside jokes per se, more just quoting the video where the redirect came from because it's funny. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so is the nom's rationale lmao cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the odd one out I'd like to point out that my own crossed-off line was instead a reference to the concept that the line and the line directly after it ("Not anymore, there's a blanket!") was meant to introduce, the idea of the ozone layer forming and protecting the surface of the Earth enough for animals to emerge from the water 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzose

Quartzose → Silicon dioxide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Retarget per nom. Fieari (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Worker

Worker → Workforce (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Workers → Workforce (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

@Fgnievinski and Pppery: who have been involved in this redirect recently. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Worker (disambiguation) to Worker over the redirect. There should be a primary topic here, but we've chosen to structure the article in such a way that that concept is covered across multiple articles rather than one, so the disambiguation page is the least-bad solution. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support dab move per Pppery. If we can't agree on a primary topic then it is best to make it a dab. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget worker to worker (disambiguation) as it's unclear what's the best target. But I see the potential for a broad-concept article, maybe splitting Work (human activity)#Workers. fgnievinski (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski: That would make the disambiguation page WP:MALPLACED. Would you support moving Worker (disambiguation) to this title instead? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was hoping to float a Draft:Worker in the meantime, but that would take longer. fgnievinski (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
move and retarget per pppery cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled Workers in procedurally closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15 § Workers. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move over dab and retarget to Worker as an {{r from plural}} respectively, per above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cimexa

Draft:Cimexa → Silicon dioxide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Comment it's the brand name of a silica powder -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a product not at the target, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of a new draft article if someone wants to write about the brand name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's always been a redirect (WP:RDRAFT). Steel1943 (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaface

Pizzaface → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pizza Face → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

AN/ALQ-128 → McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle#Specifications (F-15C) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

~~Delete~~ this seems to be a module installed on the F-15, but presumably this is installed on other US military aircraft. Delete to allow for article creation on this EW module, if notable. Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looks like this was an article until 2022 when it was nominated as PROD, but then de-prodded and redirected to its current target. Maybe we should overturn the original BLAR and send to AFD. Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not that i'm an expert in military doodads, but the second and third sources in the pre-blar diff don't seem all that reliable, significant, not user-generated, not deprecated over scraping and plagiarism... honestly, i'm not putting too much faith in the first one (which is currently down, seeing as the internet archive is also down) either, as the wording there implies it's more about the an/alr-56. i did find one seemingly reliable-ish article that mentions it, but it's in passing, not even about the f-15, and seems to only mention it by accident (mixing it up with the an/alq-218, probably) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ..., Hear Me Roar!

I am ..., Hear Me Roar! → I Am Woman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete

— TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ting ting tang tang tang

Ting ting tang tang tang → See Tình (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me? → Mickey Mouse March (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar → Don't You Want Me (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

Into the Motherland the German army march

Into the Motherland the German army march → The Art of War (Sabaton album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete the first line of the lyrics of the song "Panzerkampf". May violate WP:LYRICS --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

My tea's gone cold, I'm wondering why I got out of bed at all → Thank You (Dido song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior

Nikostratos Greco-Roman Warrior → Greek mythology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

External factors plant

External factors plant → Plant#Factors affecting growth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

WRYYYYYYYYYYY

WRYYYYYYYYYYY → Dio Brando (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

The World (weapon)

The World (weapon) → Dio Brando (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for creation

Wikipedia:Requests for creation → Wikipedia:Article wizard (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete seems more like WP:Requested articles to me. Since we now have 3 proposed targets for this vague term it's better to leave it red. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. This is a very plausible search term, but with multiple possible targets (Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and Wikipedia:Requested articles (and its subpages) at least). When we have a plausible search term with multiple equally plausible targets what we do is disambguate, not delete. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. Despite the fact it only has 11 links currently, there are enough possible targets we should make sure whoever accidentally puts this down has readers who can find where they're thinking they're going. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are other thinks like redirects, categories and files etc and if Wikipedia:Miscellany for creation existed that would be another target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buccal organ(s)

Buccal organ → Sucker (zoology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Buccal organs → Sucker (zoology) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Comment looking at it from an English language point of view, it should point to mouth, or a generalized orifice topic for the entry point to the digestive tract -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mouth is the best option for buccal organ – it's the buccal organ, it just contains some other lesser ones. The mouth is, you could say, the mother of all buccal organs. Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

T:WPMHA

T:WPMHA → Template:WPMILHIST Announcements (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

~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]

Keep. Redirect is 10 years old, which means it was definitely created before the namespace redirect TM: was created, and we generally keep old cross-namespace redirects. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the redirect predates "TM:". But 2014 is really not that old. Pseudo-namespace titles have been majorly contentious for much longer than a decade. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18#T:WPTECH is an example of a heated discussion, but T: titles have been getting nominated since 2010 and earlier (on principle of being T: titles). So I'd hardly call 2014 a "longstanding example", especially as this title has never stood the test of time. As an example, T:AC has been the subject of 3 RfDs. T:WPMHA has been the subject of none, so there's no precedent of !keeping. It's only been "unearthed" as of today, basically. Compounded with WP:NORUSH to discuss this PNR sooner.

We don't "generally keep" cross namespace redirects on the premise of "being old", so I'm really not sure where that statement comes from. Being old does not inherently give a title immunity. Especially so if the title is otherwise problematic, which cross-namespace redirects inherently are, especially ones from mainspace where our casual readers stick to. The "problematic"-factor is offset by some level of demonstrable utility, which is why such titles might stick.

Quick aside: pseudo-namespace redirects =/= cross-namespace redirects. WP:PNRs are designed to allow for easily linking to a title, without the need to write out the whole prefix for the namespace. "Template" might only be 8 letters, but if you're typing it ten or so times a day for monitoring purposes, those keyclicks add up. PNR utility can come from either use in wikilinks, as well as use in a search bar.

So let's examine demonstrable utility. This title was created in 2014, exclusively as a compromise when T:WPMA was getting deleted. Since its creation, it has only been used by one person, the creator, on this talk page. As far as T: titles might go, 1 usage per decade is on the low end. The wikilinks are easy to adjust. Pertaining to "use in a search bar", well, the TM: alias makes it easy to access ANY template now, so all search-bar-efficiency rationales are essentially caput for T: titles. (Unless, for some reason, there's a template on WP which is so vital that its "utterly necessary to shorten 'TM:' to 'T:', saving a singular keypress". That might've been the case when 7 key-presses were being saved by "T:", but now that it's down to 1, I'd be shocked if that's the case for any template on WP.)

In closing, cross-namespace-redirects from mainspace are always unideal. Casual readers should not be accidentally falling through a trapdoor only to end up in the Wikipedia backrooms, if they can help it. T:kort, T:SCC among others, are content articles on in mainspace which "T:" titles actively infringe on. So PNRs of this type should be kept to a minimum, as they interfere with reader navigation to actual articles. Now that the TM: alias is a feature that exists, I predict most (if not all) "T:" titles will be deleted before the end of 2024, but that's just my own prediction and idk if that'll truly occur or not. But this I feel is one of the more uncontroversial ones to go; its a comparably easy two-link repair, and a solo nom to test the waters before a potential group nom of other T: titles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep it's old, it is getting used (as determined by page views, not by count of links from current revisions of pages on en.wp), it is unambiguous and I'm not seeing any evidence of it having caused any actual (as opposed to theoretical) problems in the last 10 years. We need more than that to justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something every day. I wasn't aware that T363757 added TM: as alias to Template: on English Wikipedia five months ago – in May – until now, and I'm probably not the only active editor for which this is the case. I see that ever since the T: prefix was snowed under back in December 2010, a subset of these have been picked off one or a few at at time. We currently have just 63 categorized redirects to template namespace and Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 pages. (79−63)=16 non-template T: prefix redirects:

Ten mainspace T: prefix redirects, one to talk, four to template-talk, and one to project namespace. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 12 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]

Comment That list above is not comprehensive - I use T:AC and T:ACOT (both target Template:ArbComOpenTasks) quite often and neither are on the list, similarly T:CENT (Template:Centralized discussion) is also missing. Special:PrefixIndex/T: finds 79 redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 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

Ryl → The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
RYL → The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Comment. I've been pinged as I created the redirect after the AfD, but I don't think I have anything useful to contribute, other than to feel that Thryduulf's suggestion of disambiguation appears to be useful. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate I've drafted a sample dab page at RYL below the RfD nomination -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the draft I now firmly support disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dabify. good job, ip :3 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate at RYL. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps triple

Pstriple → PlayStation 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
PS-Triple → PlayStation 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Open/Point No.1

Open/Point No.1 → Point No. 1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Online education

Online education → Distance education (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Online Education → Educational technology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 14 § Online education – retarget to Distance education

Seems ambiguous. There is also Online school. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget [Online Education] to Distance education. Thanks to the COVID pandemic happening, this seems to be the primary redirect topic for these terms with Educational technology and Online school being potential subtopics when referring to the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listed the previous RfD. Note that there was a disambig page Online learning that was discussed there. Jay 💬 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the discovery/existence of the aforementioned disambiguation page does not change my stance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 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]

Retarget both to Online school — as distance education doesn’t only cover online learning. Roasted (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... huh? Online learning is a disambiguation page, and education doesn't happen only at schools. I'm not seeing the argument here, and I really am trying. Steel1943 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Online learning because this phrase often refers to online learning in class. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

26, November, 2006

26, November, 2006 → 2006#November (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

The issue stated in the nomination statement can be resolved by retargeting to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26. However the real issue should be the formatting. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:08, 17 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]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26 per Taxix and Utopes. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Portal:Current events/2006 November 26. C F A 💬 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Retargeting would only justify creation of similar redirects. Furthermore, the use of multiple commas is not usually standard. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't explicitly cite WP:PANDORA, but "...would only justify creation of similar redirects" is pretty much entirely what a WP:PANDORA argument is-- so I'm going to direct you over to WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Tavix and Utopes. The Day/Month/Year formatting is completely plausible, and the only thing at issue is an extra comma-- which, one extra character added by accident shouldn't impact plausibility enough to delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer deletion, so I wouldn't say via of me. The formatting is totally fine, but because there is no mainspace coverage of this encyclopedic search term, going to a portal where there is no encyclopedic prose or editable material is unideal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Utopes, Champion and other nominators above supposed for the deletion as costly redirect. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 22:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Presidential Board

Presidential Board → President of the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per nom. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete – Definitely too vague a term to be a useful redirect to one specific article title. Drdpw (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Tata (Persian King)

Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chrysolith

Chrysolith → Peridot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep per Thryduulf's analysis. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf, perhaps an actual mention on the Peridot page is warranted to prevent any cases of WP:RASTONISH. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chrysolite since it seems to be just as ambiguous as that term, for which it seems to be an alternative or foreign variant. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page Chrysolite, per Felix QW. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview (typeface) and others

Grandview (typeface) → DIN 1451 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Skeena (typeface) → Microsoft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seaford (typeface) → Microsoft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Retarget per Lunamann. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping trains

Bumping trains → Fare evasion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep, potentially add mention: Apparently, this is a decently well-known term for evading train/subway fare. https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/london-train-expert-explains-youd-26292881 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so long as it isn't mentioned. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no mention of the word "bump" or "bumping" at the target article. The redirect has zero valuable history so nothing will be lost upon deletion. The title can always be recreated when material is added, which doesn't even have to happen this year. There is no rush to improve the encyclopedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How do we generally deal with slang terms? I suppose this one evolved out of "to bunk a train" (same meaning), which I can find attested since as early as 2002,[24] and which I'd guess exists since the 1980s or 90s. However, it does not seem like we have any redirects that involve this one. Wiktionary has no mention of this one either, even though it is still in use, as confirmed by a quick google search. I'd even say "to bunk" in this context is much more common than "to bump". -- In the meantime, I lean keep, per Lunamann. It seems to be a popular slang term, in use since the late 2010s,[25][26] and the redirect has been viewed 56 times this year.[27] Renerpho (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catcher's mitt

Catcher's mitt → Catcher's Mitt (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Retarget per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Baseball glove as the clear primary target for this title, and put a hatnote on both. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Baseball glove per nom and add a hatnote to Catcher's Mitt (there is already a suitable hatnote at Catcher's Mitt). A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Baseball glove, add hatnote to current target just in case for our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Baseball glove to avoid WP:ASTONISHment. I would not object to a hatnote. Fieari (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and hatnote, per above. Note there was already a hatnote on Catcher's Mitt, but it was in the wrong place (under lead) and so was rendering incorrectly on mobile web - I've just fixed that. BugGhost🦗👻 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restore and take to AfD

Ronnie Cowan (rugy union)

Ronnie Cowan (rugy union) → Ronnie Cowan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete since the correct version exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point in misspelled directs while the correctly titled redirect definitely does. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete implausible typo. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to malformed redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly implausible misspelling. Partofthemachine (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Implausible typo that hardly anyone will type. Procyon117 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.1415926535…

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 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]

Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.

If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.

(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.

Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 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]

Sidepiece (DJs)

Sidepiece (DJs) → Party Favor (DJ) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per nom, WP:REDYES. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Queen of Hearts (and WP:RFD#D10), but if not deleted it would be much better targeted to Nitti Gritti#Biography, or better yet a new subsection, as it contains far more information about the duo than the current target does. A7V2 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

National Sports Administration

National Sports Administration → General Administration of Sport of China (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

- Agree. The hatnote target would be Sports governing body#National governing bodies I think. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Von Detten

Erie Von Detten → Eerie Von (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Bot policy → Wikipedia:Bot policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Bot policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's a newly-created WP:XNR without particular affinity to Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about policy regarding killbots in warfare, etc; WP:XNR excessive navelgazing -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does anyone think robots.txt would be a good target for this? Fieari (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Too specific. Perhaps Robot#Robots in society or Artificial intelligence#Regulation? —Cryptic 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At this point, WP:TNT is probably more helpful than determining a retargeting option. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Image use → Wikipedia:Image use policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Maybe salvageable with a retarget to illustration? —Cryptic 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Cryptic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a newly-created WP:XNR without particular affinity to Wikipedia. I'd also accept retargeting, but I don't think illustration is a great target – not all "uses of images" are to illustrate a concept or process. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing; not the fair use article, not the article about the politics of imagery, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Illustration, or Delete as my 2nd choice. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague, given the phrase has a connection to image copyrights, making Illustration a potentially misleading target. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My test for retargeting is usually whether a hatnote at the new target would be feasible. In this case, Illustration is too far removed from Image use to make a good redirect target. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

No original research → Wikipedia:No original research (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No original research" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Do not keep as ~~both~~ an unhelpful WP:XNR due to the Wikipedia meta-ness of the phrase. ~~and since there's no appropriate page in the article space to retarget this redirect.~~ Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update per Jlwoodwa's comment. I'm neutral on their findings, but want to make it clear I'm no longer hard "delete" on this regardless of the result. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia § Content policies and guidelines, with a self-ref hatnote to WP:NOR. Unlike the other redirects nominated today, this phrase is almost completely unique to Wikipedia. Someone who searches for this is overwhelmingly likely to have WP:NOR in mind, and it's a term that people could encounter before they learn about namespaces. (I would !vote for keeping if not for the brief mention in mainspace, which is a better target per the consensus against new WP:XNRs. If someone removes the sentence It must not present original research. from the target section – which seems mildly possible, since currently it's only sourced to Wikipedia itself – the redirect should target WP:NOR again.) jlwoodwa (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget given unlike legal threats this is likely at least more so a Wikipedia specific term but has mainspace content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. Not about real world use outside in the real world beyond Wikipedia. Not about R&D dollars vs basic research dollars in funding policy, etc. ie. funding for watch crabs walk, etc. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Jlwoodwa. Unambiguous and a likely search term, including for those who haven't learned about namespaces yet (it's a common reason why first attempts at articles are deleted/draftified), but given the mainspace content exists we should target there with a hatnote to the project space page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and Hatnote per jlwoodwa above, who makes an excelent case for it. This is a wikipedia unique term of art, if they are searching for it they want to know about it in the context of wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

Deletion policy → Wikipedia:Deletion policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would think to search for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" New users are often quickly thrown into the fray of our deletion process, so ths is a plausible thing for someone to search for when the article they created has just been CSD'd/PRODded/AfD'd. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Deletion policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were retargeted to the analgous deletion of articles on Wikipedia then it would be obvious that it is being ridiculously presumptuous. Delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Deletion of articles on Wikipedia as probably the most plausable topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I'd agree with Tamzin, but Einstein v. 357 LLC § Findings on Evidence and Internet censorship in Germany § Access Impediment Act show that the term sees some use outside Wikipedia. There's also Data retention § Policies, which isn't called a deletion policy, but it's certainly a policy on deletion. I'd accept retargeting some mainspace article with a self-ref hatnote to WP:DP, but I haven't found a good target so far. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect, with a deletion log entry including a link to WP:Deletion policy to help Wikipedians and intending Wikipedians. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This gets much use in the controversies on social networks with their content policies and arbitrary deletions. Clearly a WP:REDYES -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Crouch, Swale. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone searching for "Deletion policy" on Wikipedia is looking for Wikipedia's policy on deletion - for example someone whose article has just been deleted or a reader who thinks some other article should be deleted, so it is important that this is easy to find. However given that relevant mainspace content exists we should target that, those who are looking for the policy can follow the link at the top of the page. Those looking for other deletion policies will not find anything on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the vast majority of readers searching Wikipedia are using an external search engine. I don't think it's fair to assume that they're looking for an English Wikipedia-specific policy. Lots of user-generated content sites have policies on deleting content. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning policy

Banning policy → Banning (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

While it's true that this was created as cross-namespace (to Wikipedia:Banning policy), banning is in namespace 0. Not that this seems like a particularly useful retarget; "policy" only makes sense in relation to just three of the entries on that dab page. —Cryptic 20:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Not sure how I missed this. C F A 💬 21:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the redirect to the Banning disambiguation page is apt, but I don't have a better suggestion. Ban (law) comes closest with its lead sentence, A ban is a formal or informal prohibition[1] of something., but the article is about legally-enacted prohibitions (as indicated by the name). A policy is generally used to describe guidance that an authority is enacting on its own discretion. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Banning is better than any of the alternatives anyone has come up with so far, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ban is incrementally better, I think. (And conveniently already has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Banning policy.) —Cryptic 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that "banning policy" is more generic than restricting Internet access. It can refer to prohibited behaviour in a place open to the public, for example. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is a bad target. Banning is not restricted to the internet. People get banned from shopping centers, amusement parks, casinos. It would be encyclopedic to examine banning in casinos -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Blocking policy → Wikipedia:Blocking policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Blocking policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that might be a common usage today, I think Access control is a better target to cover the broader concept of a policy to block access. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though this can clearly indicate block allocation policy... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. "Blocking" has several ambiguous contexts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have blocking and there are potentially other forms of blocking that could have policies however it could be useful to new users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. "Blocking" is just so ambiguous this is not useful. Block allocation, Banning, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Access control per Isaacl and Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking makes the most sense to me if we retarget, but really, I don't know what we'd gain by having a redirect from here to there. Not going to help with searches, not going to help find more specific content. Access control would be a surprising place to land at if you're looking for one of the other senses of the phrase. —Cryptic 06:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

Username policy → Wikipedia:Username policy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would be looking for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" Given that for many people creating a username is the first step in contributing to Wikipedia, I find the answer in this case an emphatic yes. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Username policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have username policies and there could be other uses that don't involve computers etc where usernames have policies. Also User (computing)#Username format doesn't appear to discuss policies so it probably not a good target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. There is so much material that could be built about controversial username policies for social media and accounts allowed by corporations. There's the unreasonable name length bans for users of various services that appear in the news now and then, about people with long names or short names, not allowed names, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pppery. That page already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Username policy. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

No legal threats → Wikipedia:No legal threats (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete. Unlikely search term for a new user. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "No legal threats" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retarget to Legal threat but otherwise delete as not a Wikipedia specific term though having "No" makes it more so its obvious unlike original research that people or websites etc don't want legal threats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. This is all over the place in the world at large, and in written contracts, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia-meta phrase with no adequate article namespace equivalent. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Legal threat which contains a hatnote to the Wikipedia policy, and thus covers everything that anyone using this search term is likely to be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Thryduulf. 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs)
Delete. "No legal threats" is not a likely search term for someone looking up "legal threats". Any Wikipedia desires become irrelevant and navel gazing at that point, and the appropriate page can be found in Wikipedia space. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Days

Days → Days (The Kinks song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Retarget: Day is obviously the primary topic. C F A 💬 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. The edit summary "Much more likely target" leaves me only to think that perhaps DeCausa got mixed up about what page they were on or what page they were retargeting to. I note that Days (song) remains a redir to the DAB page (likely correctly, per WP:PDAB). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget back to Day per nom, CFA, and Tamzin as a {{R from plural}} like it was when it was originally created. Even if the song "Days" by the Kinks may be what first comes to certain people's minds, I don't think it overshadows the singular as the primary topic. It's also worth considering fixing links intended for the song, since we don't want to WP:ASTONISH people looking for the article about days. Regards, SONIC678 01:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, IME the best way to do that is to temporarily retarget to the DAB page after closing, then fix all the newly-created inbound dablinks, then implement the actual retarget. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Day per WP:PLURALPT "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular", which I see no reason to iognore here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the generic meaning per WP:PLURALPT and WP:ASTONISH especially given the long-term significance and also has higher views[[28]] on most days. The DAB would also be possible but the generic meaning is probably primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Day (disambiguation) as a plural form with multiple notable alternative topics, such as Days of Our Lives. Also, do not keep as the current target is obviously erroneous as a primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Day. I don't see a compelling need to retarget to the disambiguation page, as other uses are already covered by a hatnote. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Nose-pickers

Scottish Nose-pickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Scottish Nose Pickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Scottish Nosepickers → Scottish National Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust ^(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Copa América

2032 Copa América → Copa América (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per nom. There is no mention of 2032 at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile → Dietary biology of the Nile crocodile (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete dumb. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, implausible typo. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate → Joining of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep. This is a {{R from move}} and a plausible search term. That it's a less used search term than the target is not relevant to anything. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to an implausible typo as it has "the of" instead of "of the." Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create the correct Joining of the Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G6, unambiguously created in error with "the of". It was there for ~12 hours before being moved. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G6, totally contrary to any reason to keep an "R from move", which the template text states is to "avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." After 12 hours in 2020, would have a comfortable 0 links. Alternatively, move this page (without leaving a redirect) to the name suggested by Shhhnotsoloud, as this discussion could have been avoided entirely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JD "the Couch" Vance

JD "the Couch" Vance → JD Vance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
JD "the couch" Vance → JD Vance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of JD Vance couch controversy this is an unambiguous nickname that is in use and is explained at the proposed target (but not in his main article) which is exactly what someone who wants to learn why he has this nickname is looking for. This is only going to get more likely as time passes as fewer people will be familiar with the meme or its origin. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nickname has insufficient due weight to continue existing, I honestly don't see how the coverage in Hillbilly Elegy explains this nickname (other than it's completely made up). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All nicknames are made up. The existence of this one though can be trivially verified as existing in multiple independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonexistent nickname. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/harris-walz-first-rally-takeaways

This article likens him as "the couch", so idk about the nickname being nonexistent YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Thryduulf. The proposed new target explains where the nickname came from, and why. Removing the redirect at this juncture because "it'll be irrelevant after this election cycle" is running into WP:CRYSTAL issues-- we're not yet after this election cycle, are we? When and if it truly becomes irrelevant, is when we should remove the redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean, Dwayne Johnson is The Rock, but is JD Vance The Couch? Not even the disambiguation page, The Couch, mentions that it's a notable or widely used nickname for JD Vance.[35] (There was this piece of funny vandalism [36], which has now been removed, but "The Couch" isn't referring to Vance himself.) Some1 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think JD "the couch" Vance (the uncapitalized form) should be added to this RfD. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Some1 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-used nickname. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited refers to him as “the couch”, not “JD "the couch" Vance”. If there’s actual usage of this in RS then retarget per Thrydulff. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couch sex

Couch sex → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4#Couch sex. That redirect had a different target though so this is not eligible for G4 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very ambiguous term. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete its a common thing -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a common term to refer to something other than the target of the redirect. We do not have an article about the common thing this refers to. As we lack the content the searcher is most likely looking for, delete. Fieari (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sex with couch

Having sex with couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Having sex with a couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Sex with couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sex with a couch → Hillbilly Elegy#Renewed attention (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

Delete – per nom ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the spirit of the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 4#Couch sex. This would make a good redirect to a general article about having sex with furniture (or a similar article) but we don't have one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this one seems actually pretty plausible as a redirect. I can't think of anyone else associated with the concept of sexing up that specific type of furniture. Also, let's not crystal-ball what will and won't be relevant after November 7. There's no rush, after all. maybe if Trump wins, Vance's critics will continue to use the hoax as a pejorative against him? No telling from when I am, in October 2024. BarntToust ^(Talk) 20:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have JD Vance couch hoax. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K'gari (local council), Queensland

K'gari (local council), Queensland → K'gari, Queensland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete Technically I created this redirect when I reversed an erroneous pagemove which was attempting to rename the locality to "K'gari" while disambiguating it from the article about the island (although the ", Queensland" already did this), but assumed the locality was a "local council". As such, I agree it is an unlikely redirect and therefore unnecessary. --Canley (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no local council known as "K'gari" as far as I'm aware. Steelkamp (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly → Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly#List of speakers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete I agree that the repeated "of the" is implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree as well with the implausibility. BarntToust ^(Talk) 20:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the correct version exists at List of speakers of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

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

October 11

Allan Cerda

Allan Cerda → Cincinnati Reds minor league players#Allan Cerda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Delete No longer plays for Reds and not notable for stand alone article.-- Yankees10 15:22, 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]

Delete. The user is better served by Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fântânele River (Mureș)

Fântânele River (Mureș) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fantanele River (Mures) → Mureș (river) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Comment: There's also the version without diacritics, which I'll be adding here, since I think it should share the same fate. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 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

Misbehaviour → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Misbehavior → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Ill-behaved → Behavior (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Weak disambiguate misbehavior/misbehaviour the only entries which strictly meet MOS:DAB are Misbehavior (film) and Misbehaviour (film), and various WP:DABMENTIONs (e.g. songs on Behaviour (Saga album) and Come of Age), but there's a whole bunch of stuff that would go in WP:DABSEEALSO: Missbehavior, Misbehaving (disambiguation), a {{wiktionary}} link, and closely-related concepts like acting out or misconduct or anti-social behavior which just barely fail MOS:DABSYNONYM (they mention "rebellious behavior", "behavior which is unacceptable", etc., though never strictly use the word "misbehavior"). Perhaps a bit of a WP:IAR but it seems better to disambiguate than move both films to their base titles and put giant hatnotes on them. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, I want to point out that, rather than Behavior, since the term "misbehavior" is generally understood to refer to Human behavior, that should probably be the proper redirect target. Just one problem: to my astonishment, there is no mention of misbehavior in that article. Surely there should be at least a full section there! I also checked out the articles about Misconduct and Deviance (sociology), but neither of them is truly appropriate. Wish I had a good answer! Oh btw, I removed the "antonym" reference before I came to this discussion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguate the first two per 59.149. Delete Ill-behaved. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Melonade

Melonade → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 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]

Soft Retarget to wikt:melonade as the best information currently available on this word. I have doubts it is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to make an article here at this time (but who knows in the future...). Fieari (talk) 06:02, 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]

Delete per nom, unmentioned and WP:REDYES 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No article has any substantive material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REtarget to melon where melon juice redirects to -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:melonade per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independence of Path

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Unmentioned Suikoden characters (2)

Gilbert (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Suikoden II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Valeria (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Valeria (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Viki (Suikoden) → Suikoden#Viki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Viki(Suikoden) → Suikoden#Viki (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete Viki(Suikoden) because there's no space between the title and the disambiguator. Unsure on the rest, though—they may not be mentioned, but as SnowFire says in the huge nomination below, the list of characters may be brought back with independent sourcing. I think these three should share the same fate as those in the huge nomination two nominations below this one (I am open to being swayed otherwise, though). Regards, SONIC678 06:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just tagged Viki(Suikoden) with {{Db-x3}}. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should take note of some of the comments at #Unmentioned Suikoden characters that may also apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but my arguments are in the other "Unmentioned Suikoden characters". Just seemed inefficient to rewrite this in several places and these used to all be on the same page, but I guess one was relisted without the other. Delete Viki(Suikoden) per Sonic678. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 3 October 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]

Viki(Suikoden) has already been deleted under X3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 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

Surnames from the name Leib → Leib (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete. Confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leib#Surnames derived from the name now that the content has been restored. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need. The original (and restored) page contained anchor. --Altenmann >talk 23:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer section redirects over anchor redirects whenever possible, especially when forwarding to the top of a section, so I disagree. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with your preference: sections are often renamed and nobody cares to fix redirects, that can be multiple. I am fixing such consequences of benevolent but clueless copyeditors at least one a month. Anchors are permanent, unless someone removes them without much thinking. --Altenmann >talk 18:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about section headers or anchors: Someone removing them or renaming them causes havoc. The main difference here though is that section headers are more compatible with the mobile version of Wikipedia than anchors. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Someone "optimized" the page and created confusion. --Altenmann >talk 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever they did to the page, this redirect doesn't make sense anymore, given the respecting content is no longer there, so I'd say the nomination statement is valid. It's like deleting a redirect from a fictional character to a character list after the character is removed from the list. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And now, it's back. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Steel1943. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Altenmann & Steel; whether it's refined or kept at the anchor is honestly not an issue to me, both go to the same place. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leib#Surnames derived from the name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change to Leib#Surnames derived from the name. I don't think "Surnames" is a good idea for an anchor on such an article, seems quite confusing especially with a section "Surname". A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Revilla

Pita Revilla → Bernard Palanca (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pita Revilla is the mother of Bernard Palanca and Miko Palanca ([37]). A one-sentence article was created but reverted per WP:NOTINHERITED. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon → Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Delete. Apparently, "Gamelon" is a setting, not an alternative name for Ganon. For this reason, the redirect is erroneous and not a title match in any form or variation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correct, gamelon is the place, ganon (which the game explicitly spells with only two ns) is the green guy cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"

However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?

I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research impact

Research impact → Research Excellence Framework (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Disambig. In addition to the target we have other articles like Bibliometrics, Impact factor, Author-level metrics, Citation impact and probably others that someone using this search term could be looking for. There is also Research4Impact that warrants at least a see-also on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 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

Legendary beast → Legendary creature (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Comment - I feel like I've also heard this term used to refer to the three legendary beasts of Ziz, Behemoth, and Leviathan as a collective set, but I can't seem to find a reference to such. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to raikou without much prejudice to a dab, at least for now, as it's the best- uh, the first one in the pokédex, and the legendary kitties manage to be the primary topic for the entire term by a longer shot than they probably should be. results for "legendary beast" -pokémon and similar searches gave me...

the behemoth... but specifically the one from final fantasy 14... and specifically the name of a quest related to it in monster hunter: world
a toy company, seemingly big fans of comic books. no article for it though
a lot of books, most of which are partial matches like "the first legendary beast master", or "the legendary beast of kara". no articles for any of them though
pokémon. i specified that i didn't want pokémon, and google gave me pokémon

even then, most results were just descriptions of things, like "wow those gym guys sure are legendary beasts, that's real muscular of their muscles", or terminology from live service games. if sources can be found for leviathan and its wacky buddies, it'll probably justify a dab. as is though, i find it pretty unlikely that the term would be used for anything other than the pokémon, even though that really shouldn't be the case here. how does it just gobble up basic terms like this for itself, d*ng cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drafted a dab regardless, by the by cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legendary creature is the WP:PTOPIC here, not individual Pokémon, but I would support adding a "For legendary Pokémon, see List of Pokémon" hatnote seeing as it could potentially be helpful. BugGhost🦗👻 17:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pokemon is a fictional creation from the 1990s, not legend or any other kind of folklore, so characters from the franchise are merely fictional, not legendary. There's no question in my mind that the current target is the primary topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: For clarification, the reason that these three are referred to as "legendary beasts" is because they are classified as Legendary Pokémon in-universe, and Pokémon fans frequently refer to these three Pokémon as the legendary beasts. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate I could easily see people wanting to read about actual legendary creatures when they type this in, but Google results clearly favor this trio of Pokémon. For clarification, the term "legendary beasts" is frequently used to refer to these three collectively, as they are considered legendary beasts in-universe and are classified as Legendary Pokémon. Legendary bird is a similar case and is currently a disambiguation page. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google results are naturally going to be biased in favour of recent pop-culture subjects. This is a concept with thousands of years of (pre)history; Pokemon can't compete. Nyttend (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason Google is biased towards recent pop-culture is because that's what a lot of people are searching for. Yes Pokemon is a much newer and much less high-brow subjected, but none of that is relevant to an NPOV encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Legendary Beasts were introduced in the GBC-era Gold/Silver; this is pretty far from recent. Granted the idea of beasts of legend is far from new, but discounting Pokemon and and saying that, say, Mythical creatures is the primary topic is... What's the opposite of recentism? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  to say the least i can, i disagree with that. from some snooping around (googling things and looking for specific dates), use of the term "legendary beast" and its plural form has been primarily associated with the funny kitties by a long shot since at least mid 2001 (i'm not pushing it to back july 2000 when a tcg pack released to tease gold and silver, apparently already using this name for the trio, that'd be a stretch even by my standards). while it probably shouldn't, i think those particular pokémon can compete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this is an encyclopedia, not a pop-culture directory or a popular-right-now website: we prioritise things of long-term significance. When I search Google for "apple", all but one of the results on the first two pages are related to the computer company, but we leave the fruit article at apple because it's of long-term significance. Try looking in dead-tree sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as is it should target legendary creature -- the disambiguation page should be located at Legendary beast (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as redirect), the primary topic is legendary creatures which discusses beasts. A disambig page to alleviate possible confusion should be at (disambiguation), if decided to utilize. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The generic meaning takes priority over one franchise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fendlerella utahensis

Fendlerella utahensis → Fendlerella (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

2026 Women's Finalissima

2026 Women's Finalissima → Women's Finalissima (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:REDYES. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Futsal Finalissima

2026 Futsal Finalissima → Futsal Finalissima (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:REDYES. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DC Super Hero Girls (disambiguation)

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

The [console]: round 2: the revengening

The Play Station 4 → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Play Station IV → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PlayStation IV → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PlayStation4 → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PlayStationIV → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Wii U → Wii U (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The WiiU → Wii U (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Wii → Wii (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The nintendo wii → Wii (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

oh wait

delete the playstation4 and the playstationiv as malformed. should have noticed them before cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I know they seem a bit redundant, but the "the"'s do actually get used. eg "the Wii", "the PlayStation 4", and "the Wii U" are all used in this article on Britannica, "the Wii U" and "the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3" and "the Switch" in this Guardian article. "The" + [games console] is a pretty common structure. BugGhost🦗👻 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. As per WP:CHEAP; redundancy is not an issue for a redirect; the important question to ask is if A: it's possible that it could be typed, and B: it goes to the correct place. B is unquestionably correct for every single one of these-- and with A, as per BugGhost people do refer to these consoles as "The [console]"; it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be typed as such in the search bar. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Most aren't particularly common, but they are plausible, and none damaging or misleading, so I see no reason for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. These are all plausible and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as the creator of two of these redirects, The Wii U and The WiiU, these redirects are useful to people who think that the "The" is part of the name. Sahaib (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consoles are frequently referred to with a definite article so it's plausible to search in this fashion for them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alll - It is meme'd nearly to the level of a joke, but non-gamers without domain knowledge do in fact refer to these consoles with the definitely article as part of the name. Even though this is in error, it is a common enough error to make looking for the topics this way a very plausible search term. Fieari (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Media

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The [console]

The Nintendo Entertainment System → Nintendo Entertainment System (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Dreamcast → Dreamcast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PlayStation → PlayStation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PlayStation 4 → PlayStation 4 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The PS3 → PlayStation 3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep all - (my comment on the similar RFD here.) The Dreamcast article's opening paragraph starts with The Dreamcast is the final home video game console manufactured by Sega, Nintendo Entertainment System starts with The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) is an 8-bit home video game console produced by Nintendo., Playstation 3 starts with The PlayStation 3 (PS3) is a home video game console developed and marketed by Sony Computer Entertainment., and Playstation 4 starts with The PlayStation 4 (PS4) is a home video game console developed by Sony Interactive Entertainment.. BugGhost🦗👻 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on closer inspection Redirect The PlayStation to PlayStation (console), as it's current target is the brand PlayStation, rather than the original PlayStation console. Keep the rest. BugGhost🦗👻 15:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget The PlayStation to Playstation (console); Keep the rest, as per BugGhost. As per WP:CHEAP; redundancy is not an issue for a redirect; the important question to ask is if A: it's possible that it could be typed, and B: it goes to the correct place. B is unquestionably correct for every single one of these except for The PlayStation -- and with A, as per BugGhost people do refer to these consoles as "The [console]"; it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be typed as such in the search bar. edit 15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REtarget The PS3 to PS3 (disambiguation); The PlayStation to PlayStation (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/retarget per above. Even if they're not common or official, they're still plausible and non-damaging. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget The PlayStation to PlayStation (console), Keep all the others (including "The PS3") as these are harmless redirects that do get use but in the case of "The PlayStation" do not currently point to the primary topic for the search term (literally 100% of hits on the first five pages of a Google search for "The PS3" -Wikipedia refer to the console). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and keep per Lunamann. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per WP:PANDORA. We do not have a corresponding "The" redirect for every consumer electronics product that could be referred to as such (i.e. The MacBook). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use Pandora, see WP:GETBACKINTHERE-- it's unhelpful and can be actively harmful to cite. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we do not currently have other similar redirects is not a reason why these redirects are harmful or why any other similar redirects would be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally vie for pandora to get back in their box. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that application of PANDORA, nor do I think this is a convincing "we don't have that elsewhere" argument. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that MacBook is about the brand that spans multiple laptop models (so "the MacBook" would be a bad redirect), while The new MacBook is an existing redirect to 12-inch MacBook, which is about an individual MacBook model - that redirect has been live for 9 years. BugGhost🦗👻 22:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love WP:PANDORA, but yeah, it's not a popular stance. Blarg. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if WP:PANDORA were edited to take into account the issues listed in WP:GETBACKINTHERE, I'd probably be less adamant about its not being used, lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If PANDORA were edited to take into account all the issues with it there wouldn't be anything left! Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely and entirely fair lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consoles are frequently referred to with a definite article so it's plausible to search in this fashion for them. I also don't see an issue with The MacBook should it be created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Very plausible search term, these consoles-- indeed, any console-- is often refered to using the definite article by non-gamers (those currently lacking domain specific knowledge). I also advocate never using pandora as an argument in RfD. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSX2

PSX2 → PlayStation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
PSX 2 → PlayStation 2 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep it was referred to that way at the time. {{R from nickname}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it was unofficially used back in the day, similar to how Nintendo Switch 2 is used now, Wii 2 was used for Wii U, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as a plausible {{R from incorrect name}} for PSX (digital video recorder) (thus a potential claim that these redirects are ambiguous) since it was made specifically to be used with the PlayStation 2. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Someone finding historical reference to these may want to search what they meant at the time. The target of the redirect will inform them in a useful manner. Fieari (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Dos

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 10

Soft D

Soft D → Finnish phonology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Danish phonology per nom. Fieari (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe weak disambiguate. A search reveals at least 3 other reasonable targets, 2 of which I wouldn't even begin to know how to describe correctly. It also finds a mention at Colloquial Finnish, presumably why this redirect exists, but that article appears to be ~99% OR. I'd advise someone who knows more about Finnish to look into that one more closely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that Danish phonology is the most common use of the term, but it does also exist in various medieval languages, so this is a WP:REDYES argument. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Maryland alumni

Category:University of Maryland alumni → Category:University System of Maryland alumni (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

No relation

No relation → wiktionary:Special:Search/no relation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

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

F-duction

F-duction → Plasmid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Appears in the Index of genetics articles (despite being a redirect, though the page also contains a bunch of redlinks), and is mentioned in the article about Edward A. Adelberg, who apparently discovered this. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This a synonym to sexduction and, as far as I can tell, just an outdated way of referring to bacterial conjugation. Sexduction itself is a redirect to bacterial conjugation and is also not mentioned in that article. Maybe retarget to Bacterial conjugation and tag with {{R from alternative name}} ― Synpath 15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wiktionary defines sexduction as "A form of bacterial conjugation involving the F-plasmid." – wbm1058 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of characters in Suikoden

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tellurane

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cincinnati Bengals (AFL)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Carrotion

Carrotion → Carotene (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete. Google hits are a mix of things I can't work out (most prominent is a reference to a model of Volvo car, but I can't work out which one), misspellings of "corrosion" or OCR errors for words like "correction" and "collection". I did find one hit where I think it means "Carotene" (it's a comment about sun tan lotion that does have carotene in it) but it's presently inaccessible due to a server error so I can't verify that. Either way, one hit does not make a plausible misspelling error, especially when it's far more commonly (and plausibly) a spelling error for an entirely different word (corrosion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is an OCR error for carotene -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but like all misspellings, if it's a plausible misspelling or OCR error for multiple words, then it doesn't make a useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There can be exceptions to that, e.g. if one use is very significantly more common in practice than any other, but that isn't the case here. I didn't find any examples of this being an OCR error for "Carotene", indeed it would be an unlikely OCR error (based on my experience) in a couple of ways: while "o" ↔ "n" is quite common, "e" → "n" is uncommon and "r" → "rr" is very unusual. Unlike human misspellings, where substituting single for double letters and vice versa is very common (it's probably the most common type of misspelling I make) OCR errors rarely change the number of vertical strokes, especially in the middle of words, even if they sometimes distribute them wrongly (e.g. "rn" ↔ "m" ↔ "in"). Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per "what is this even a typo of?" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan try reading other people's comments. This doesn't seem to be a typo of anything, but it is a plausible but not overly common misspelling of "corrosion". Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I extracted this name from a 1954 chemical dictionary. This claims it is the same as carotin and carotine. In these dictionary carotene was not even given as a spelling. So it is not supposed to be a typo, but an alternative old spelling. But in my 1940 dictionary carotene is listed as the only form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably categorize your redirects so this kind of misunderstanding doesn't happen. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 09:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Graeme Bartlett above, and tag appropriately. Fieari (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism (arts)

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

It's never lupus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

!(*$

!(*$ → 1984 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep this is a fairly common problem with sticky keys. And of course sticky keys. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Caps lock is disabled on my keyboard, so this could happen. And before you ask, I disabled caps lock because I hit it accidentally far more often than actually using it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mind-bogglingly WP:UNNATURAL redirect. If someone has sticky keys turned on and botches a search, they can turn it off. There's no apparent reason why this particular string of digits (or any keyboard symbols for that matter) should be singled out to have such a redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible. Depending on the layout, it can happen with caps lock, but we don't need to help readers with search queries they would probably not expect themselves to work. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Grawlix (replacement of profanity by typographical symbols), similar to $@!%. That's what I expected when I saw this in the TOC and had to hunt for the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically oppose such a retarget. I was even going to nominate the existing redirect for deletion, but just hadn't gotten to it yet. This is even more unlikely a string of punctuation symbols than the existing grawlix redirect, and would be inappropriate to redirect there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grawlix is hard enough to find currently when you don't know what it is called. Searching for it using examples of it is extremely plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect won't make it any easier to find. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? By providing another example of it that may be closer to someone's search term and thus more likely to be found by search engines, etc. this will make that target easier to find for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really, and I find your insistence to the contrary bordering on bad-faith stubbornness. This specific sequence is just one of 5,040 such sequences containing 4 of the 10 symbols over the number keys without repeats. There are another 30,240 more if you use 5. And this is only on US keyboard layouts; considering others will add more. It's also one that's especially unlikely to be found due to the distances between consecutive symbols. Please, no cute little puppies will be harmed if this redirect is deleted. Just let this one go; it'll be okay. I promise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, # cannot occur in titles, and I don't think parentheses that commonly occur in grawlix (though web search results sometimes show them, as well as ? or + as well). I agree that the distances between the symbols make this unlikely. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether puppies will die as a result of deleting this redirect, but whether deleting this redirect will improve the encyclopaedia for our readers. Neither you or anyone else has given a plausible reason why deletion is better than retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeting is misleading, and hence worse than deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
How would retargetting an example of grawlix to the article on grawlix be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it requires QWERTY to work, and not some other configuration -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete (especially given that QWERTY is by the most common keyboard layout used by English speakers) and also completely irrelevant to the retargetting suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. It works with AZERTY etc, and even with Dvorjak. If you find this string standing alone it is almost certainly a mis-shift of 1984. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as implausible. I understand the point Thryduulf makes about possibly retargeting, but it seems unhelpful to me to have a redirect to grawlix for every possible combination of four symbols. There's no evidence that this specific combination is commonly used. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Grawlix. Alas, both google and nGrams can't search for punctuation, but I don't find this set of punctuation implausible for a profanity substitution. No, we don't need every single possible combination, but neither is there a reason to get rid of ones we already have, and we might as well make use of what's here. I agree that the more ways to find Grawlix, the better, as it is extremely plausible that someone might be trying to find it but have no !(*$ing clue what it's actually called. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we don't need every possbible combination, but search results are more likely to include the target if there is a redirect similar to your search term than if there isn't, so a variety will significantly increase the likelihood of someone finding what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Given your logic there, we could certainly potentially take up the task of tactfully developing a diverse set of these (partially per Steel1943 below) to aid searching for this topic. We should not, however, use an argumentum ab existentia to include this in that group without thoughtfulness. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or retarget to Grawlix. The redirect exists now, bots will have indexed it, and it certainly shouldn't point to 1984 any more. — The Anome (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment/update: For the record, I prefer "delete" over "retarget to Grawlix" since strings that represent "Grawlix" can basically be any set of random punctuation marks, so it doesn't make sense that we should redirect a sequence there that is 1) no mentioned in the article, 2) not a notable sequence and 3) could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons explained above, a limited number of distinct sequences of Grawlix is something that we do want given the clear benefit to those searching for similar strings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't agree for the reasons I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than you don't thinking we want to do it, you haven't given any reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. 🤣 Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the only reason you have given that is relevant in any way to the reasons given for titles of this nature to redirect to Grawlix is "could potentially encourage the creation of similar randomized redirects (which I don't think we want to do.)" which is almost literally "I don't like it" (but with an arguable side-helping of WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you don't want to give any additional reasons, that's fine, but don't gaslight that you have given reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Ain't no "gaslighting" ... just "stick dropping". Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redriect to Grawlix, per Thryduulf BugGhost🦗👻 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given it seems to be ambiguous between two bad targets. Cremastra (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 35.139.154.158. No affinity has been shown with this particular 4-character sequence of keyboard symbols than any other similiar potential grawlix sequence. No one seems to be suggesting that this should be done for every, or a subset of (e.g. 1900s), year article(s). Thus, there is no good target. If there is no consensus to delete, prefer current target over suggested retarget per Steel and Rich. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was initially not going to opine here, but... nah. delete. 1984 has no particular affinity with accidentally holding shift, doing that anyway can be brushed off as what is colloquially known as a "skill issue" which the average joe would likely spot and fix, and grawlix has no more affinity with !(*$ than it does with $@)¨(, @$¨)!, or !&&)!# cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grawlix has no special affinity with any particular sequence, that standard would disallow a redirect from any example of it which would clearly be detrimental to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the area of joke numbers, that is. only not linking 177013 because that's extremely not safe for life cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can't be a grawlix because of the parenthesis. A parenthesis is considered punctuation and punctuation marks are not used to make a grawlix because they are perceived as being outside of a word rather than a part of a word. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that? Our Grawlix article doesn't mention anything about punctuation, and multiple illustrations contain punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the lead image in grawlix starts with an exclamation mark cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightlike separation

Lightlike separation → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; brief explanation exists at Lorentz transformation. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPD: Searching for the adjective, Special relativity#Invariant interval appears to be a good target. (There should presumably be redirects from lightlike separated, timelike separated and spacelike separated as well.) 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Why do you think this should have a different target from Lightlike? I don't see how they're distinct. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Causal structure only seems to talk about tangent vectors (and therefore does not mention "separation")... The redirects in the nomination below could point to Special relativity#Invariant interval as well, though that section could also be linking to the causal structure article. It's mostly an issue with how the content is organised. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks for explaining. I think lightlike shouldn't redirect to a target that's too specific to discuss non-tangent vectors, then – but that's for the discussion below. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spacelike vector

Spacelike vector → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Timelike vector → Minkowski space#Causal structure (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lightlike → Minkowski space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Light-like → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Spacelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Space-like → Spacetime#Space-like interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Timelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Time-like → Spacetime#Time-like interval (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should point at the same target, but it seems like Causal structure is the most appropriate option. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to causal structure. — The Anome (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget "Space-like"/etc "time-like"/etc "light-like"/etc to spacetime, where this is explained. These forms with "vector" attached should point to causal structure -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Missoes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack) → Khaidi No. 150 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Restore the four revisions that were deleted at AFD (as I do not see a policy-baaed reason that justified their deletion in accordance with the WP:ATD !votes at the debate), merge the page history up to Onel5969's revision into Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), move the talk page to Talk:Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), then delete the remaining 2024 revision. ✗plicit 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not 100% sure I understand Explicit's proposal above, but whether the history of the former article is being maintained at Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) or Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack), the target (for both or just the one not deleted) should be refined to Khaidi No. 150#Soundtrack, and I will shortly change this for Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack). A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Atoms

John Atoms → John Adams (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

he's the inventor of atoms, how can you not know him? delete per nom. implausible misspelling, mishearing, and pun cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the sake of recognizing current education as lacking in definitive broad-based knowledge. It may be an unlikely spelling but not impossible, and doesn't harm the encyclopedia to leave it for those who wander through the weeds (sounds like an alternate-universe name for a comic book about America's founding). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Randy. Would also note that incoming targets is a poor test _pbp 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REtarget the ersatz pronunciation spelling to the disambiguation page and tag as {{R from misspelling}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible error. A quick google search finds no results of people making such an error, but it does find this in use as at least a couple stage names/aliases, and possibly a real name or two. ~~Also note that our search feature is good enough to suggest "John Adams" as possibly meant instead, making this redirect even more unneeded.~~ 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the search feature suggesting "John Adams" is likely because this redirect exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, just in case, but that doesn't change my overall assessment. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete I don't think there's even a need for a full discussion here, I see a reasonable case for WP:SPEEDY as per WP:DENY @Cogsan:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deny is explicitly not a csd, and i don't think this is vandalism for that matter, so g3 is probably out of the equation. i'd rather bet my r$6,69 (it's actually all i have at the moment, catfishing has not been very profitable lately) on cir (also not csd) or g1 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is harmless, has quite a few incomming links (those I spot checked all intended the current target) and gets plenty of pageviews so deletion would be disruptive for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"intended" is a strong word here. it seems they all come from uses of template:rfd notice between 21 and 24 december 2021, while this diff was up cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems like an unintended error. If someone could go through and fix all those incoming links to point to the normal RfD page instead of this, that'd probably be extremely helpful. In any case, Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a little iffy on doing that, since a good bit of those are in archives, and i hear the admins might tickle your schnitzels if you edit archives wrong. absolutely no prejudice with non-archived instances, though, so i'll be doing that soon-ish (except on talk:vaginal lubrication, my isp doesn't like that page) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did that for non-archive pages... 3 days late. i swear i didn't forget, i only fell asleep for nearly 3 entire days cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G6 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ exists and was kept back in 2011 but we should probably delet it as well, the title is simply an error suggesting people could be looking for the archives etc rather than the main RFD page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...weird. that one seems to have been accidentally used by multiple templates since its creation in 2005, and has an extremely strange edit history. it's a real glitch magnet, that's for sure. honestly, i'm considering nominating it just to be safe, but it gets steady views somehow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - It does get a fair amount of hits. Now, I'm willing to believe that these hits come from a malformed internal link, so I propose that all incomming links to this redirect be corrected, we wait a few months, then check usage again. But as long as this gets steady hits, I can't support deletion for the sake of mere tidiness. Don't break things needlessly. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, redirects where it is supposed to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If we keep this, fully protect to avoid some potential issues arising from its existence in the future per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 31#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has existed for well over a decade without said issues EVER arising... I don't think that would be necessary. Fieari (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason whatsoever for this to exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming links and page views show this to be incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...not feeling this one, to be honest. the reason was an accident at best, and the only incoming links outside of this (and the previous) rfd discussion are in archives (which i'm admittedly still not inclined to edit). unsurprisingly, views seem to have stopped when i fixed all the links, give or take the rare person presumably clicking on it here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

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

Usurper King

Usurper King → List of The Legend of Zelda characters#Zant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep Usurper King is unambiguously Zant or at the very least the main topic, as a quick search confirms. If you can find another case where someone is called Usurper King in running text in 20th or 21st century English, then maybe we need a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom; many many real kings have been labeled as usurpers over the centuries. The existence of this redirect is actively harmful, as it impedes searching within Wikipedia, the result of which reveals the phrase in wide use, so wide and general that even a DAB page would probably be too unwieldy to be helpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or disambig) per Rich Farmbrough. None of the other uses found by the search use this a name or title for anybody, simply a description, they would be appropriate to include on a list of people described as "usurper king" or similarly titled list but only that. Deletion of this redirect would hinder readers finding the content about the character specifically named "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per above. GHits are mostly about Zelda. There's a book that calls Henry Bolingbroke the Usurper King but I think someone more knowledgeable about royalty to confirm if it's an actual notable nickname. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I add "Henry" to the search term I do get a lot of hits for that English King, some of which use it as a sort of title, so I'd support adding a hatnote there as Zelda is the primary topic overall. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of usurpers, as lots of Kings have been called usurper in the history, and my feeling is that this list would take primacy outside of the internet (which is biased towards current culture). At the very least, I would suggest this list be hatnoted at whatever target is chosen. Yes, Henry Bolingbroke is on this list, but googling "kings who have been called usurpers" got me an instant results listing William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor immediately, so clearly historians have quite a few usurper kings in mind when they hear the term. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between describing a king as a usurper and calling someone "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I think "Usurper King", my mind would never go to Zant and I'm even a big fan of Twilight Princess. This is simply too vague to be targeted here. The IP is correct that it will disrupt legitimate searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete or retarget to List of usurpers per Fieari -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Usurper, following the same principle as Fieari but I see no reason to prefer the list to the article about the concept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S-compact space

S-compact space → Σ-compact space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFD/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [38] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer 1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment it is a Eubot (talk · contribs) creation, Eubot made tonnes of these stupid incorrect Latin-to-Greek letter redirects -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the majority of cases Eubot ASCII-fications are plausible. This one isn't only because it conflicts with the notation for something else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tebasaki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

Murgh → Chicken as food (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Retarget to Butter chicken (incidentally commonly known as "butter chikkin"). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FORRED. Retargeting as suggested above would be inappropriate too, since there's no particular reason to target this dish as opposed to any other chicken dish. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chicken, has passed into English usage, see Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"Murgh" has not passed into English, and even the Wikt entry lists it only in a sense associated with Indian cuisine. So WP:FORRED still applies. Redirecting to "chicken" would be WP:HARMFUL, as it obscures information from the user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Wiktionary entry does list it as an English word. That it is only used in one context doesn't negate that - plenty of unambiguously English terms are used only in one context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?
My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.
I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:45, 18 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]

John Mills (New Zealand cricketer cricketer)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alpha-chlornaltrexamine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:JDELANOY

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disaster recovery

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

October 9

Lists of Pokémon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Tenorite (typeface)

Tenorite (typeface) → Microsoft (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Potentially retarget to Aptos (typeface)#History, which DOES have information on Tenorite-- what it is, where it came from, and its ultimate fate (in that it was passed over for the role of successor to Calibri in favor of the Bierstadt/Aptos font). I could also, for the record, see a Deletion as per WP:REDLINK; that said, I'm not sure Tenorite is notable on its own in any context other than the fact that it was a potential successor to Calibri and lost to Aptos.
(Edit as per 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC): refined retarget location to match suggestion for the other three fonts) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enwiki has nothing substative about this typeface. I have seperately nominated Grandview (typeface), Seaford (typeface) and Skeena (typeface) that are also mentioned at Aptos (typeface). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ...see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Grandview (typeface) and others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joker persona

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:William Cilium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

4C Untitled Flatiron Nonfiction Summer 2023

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

Next king of Denmark

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ingrid I of Norway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Next king of Norway

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Haakon VIII Magnus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

🆓

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

Cody, WY μSA

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

Third Lebanon War

Third Lebanon War → Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep: It is easy to concieve of this as being a common search term given media reporting. E.g., The Jerusalem Post states "Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway". TarnishedPath^talk 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, the comments above by non EC editors should be discounted per WP:ARBECR as such editor~s may only make edit requests and cannot participate in consensus forming discussions. Secondly, this redirect arose as a result of an undiscussed page move that was undone. There is so far little evidence that the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) will escalate into a third war, limited incursions notwithstanding, although that is of course possible in the future.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, I've removed the non EC editors' comments per WP:ARBECR. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources using the term to describe this conflict and I've not found any uses of the term to refer to other conflicts. As a second choice, this could be retargetted to the Lebanon War disambiguation page, but in practice this doesn't seem ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources are referring to this as the Third Lebanon War so I'd imagine its a reasonably common search term, besides there is not exactly any other war that could be considered a third lebanon war so anyone searching that is looking for what we redirect them to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, but lean retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Otherwise a reasonable search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. See Talk:2024_Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon#Requested_move_3_October_2024 where it is being discussed to rename that article to "Third Lebanon War". The consensus appears opposed (including my own opposition), since this appears to be primarily (albeit not exclusively) a term used by Israeli sources, and hence represents an Israel-centric perspective. However, Israel-centric terms still make good candidates to be redirects to more neutral terms, since obviously some readers (especially Israeli or Jewish or pro-Israel readers) are likely to be using them as search terms. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon where it is already mentioned in the lead. And it isn't just Israeli sources, look at, say, The Guardian (Third Lebanese War. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, plausible search term and the invasion has been described as such, even if it is not necessarily the most neutral or widespread term. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Will (sociology)

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

Boston Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Toronto Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Dallas Stadium

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

PVTTIMHALL

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

Quran Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Quran in Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)

I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as primary topic. Which other Afghani Qurans are discussed on Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

Isometry (mathematics) → Isometry (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer 1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Isometry cover all of the topics on the disambiguation page? If so, I would agree that there is no need for the latter. I am not fluent enough in mathematics to say whether it is. BD2412 T 00:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics as I agree with BD2412 and also lack the mathematical knowledge to answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to isometry. This is disambiguation page abuse. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at WhatLinksHere there are no pages that link to it, page views are typical 0 and never above 2, so I don't really see the page serves any purpose other than cause confusion. --Salix alba (talk): 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Isometry (mathematics) to Isometry and change the title Isometry (disambiguation) into a redirect to Isometric. Content currently at Isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to Isometry and put into a section about examples, including some explanatory context (i.e. this should not just be a plain list of article titles); if that's too much work for someone right away, these could conceivably be added to Isometry § See also. Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation) is a completely absurd title and should be deleted –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current state of the isometry article i think the contents of the disambiguation page should be selectively merged into the lede to this article (in particular it is baffling that there is no mention of Euclidean isometries in the lede there). jraimbau (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association → Polish Athletic Association (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep, refers to this organization: Subcarpathia: Polish Athletics Association. It seems to be a literal translation --Habst (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of Subcarpathia at target. The organization mentioned by Habst seems to be a subsidiary organization of the Polish Athletic Association specifically for the region, but the redirect isn't useful if we have no information on it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman, how about adding a list of regional organizations to the Polish Athletic Association article? --Habst (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with keeping if information is added. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per Presidentman. May be recreated when regional organizations are added to the target. Jay 💬 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N3rd

N3rd → N3RD Street (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nerd (disambiguation) and itemize there. The street and the performer can be listed a stylizations of "nerd" (the street is pronounced that way, even though it originates as North Third ) ; it is also '1337'-5p33k spelling of nerd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yonama dialect

Yonama dialect → Tokunoshima language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

The placename Yonama (与那間) in Tokunoshima actually exists, so it's probably an undocumented dialect that's only extracted by the existence of the toponym. If that's the case, it can be deleted.

My redirects were taken from a .xlsx spreadsheet concerning metadata of Ryukyuan dialects, which is located in the .zip below.

https://repository.ninjal.ac.jp/records/2000162 Chuterix (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

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

Le métro de Tony Hawk

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ß-carotin

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Grood

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kerrek

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

Asplode

Asplode → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Your head a splode → Homestar Runner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Your Head Asplode → Homestar Runner#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, but there is a Wiktionary entry at wikt:asplode (which does also mention the full phrase in the quotes). 1234qwer 1234qwer4 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]

Retarget all via {{wi|asplode}} per nom. I think all three can be kept since they are captured by the quotation examples. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 8 October 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)

KGVC (FM) → KVRF (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

North Takoma

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Methodist High School

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Universal Studios

Universal Studios → Universal Studios, Inc. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"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]

Electing for disambiguation per nominator's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Universal Pictures (second choice is disambiguation) – At the very least, we have a rough consensus here against Universal Studios, Inc. as the primary topic, with some in that discussion leaning toward Universal Pictures instead. Universal Pictures was originally titled Universal Studios for more than a decade until an undiscussed technical move occurred (never got the discussion it deserved). Then recently in May, the redirect was changed to point to the parent company article instead of Universal Pictures (again, no discussion until this month).

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.

BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.

Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.

"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.

"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.

In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.

14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.

"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.

There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.

Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.

Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.

"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.

You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.

"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.

That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...

Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.

The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).

2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.

So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.

As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.

Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.

We are left with three options:

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.
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.
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]

Retarget to Universal Pictures as the primary topic and {{r from former name}}. The individual theme parks (Universal Studios Hollywood etc.) are partial title matches, so none of them would be reasonable redirect targets. The broader Universal Destinations & Experiences isn't referred to as "Universal Studios", and per GoneIn60's analysis above, people who search for "Universal Studios" alone aren't usually looking for it.
I don't see the need for Universal Studios (disambiguation) if it'll only list two other articles. Why not just a hatnote? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the individual theme parks are partial title matches means they are equally plausible candidates for the primary topic as the film studio, which is a zero-title match. A disambiguation page would include Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, Inc., Universal Destinations & Experiences, Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, Universal Studios Beijing, and Universal Studios Lot. See how it's difficult to prove that the film studio (which, again, does not even include the word "Studios" in its name) is more primary than any of these other candidates? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. If anything, I would believe this redirect is the WP:COMMONNAME for the theme parks, but per the above conversation, seems I may possibly be incorrect in that stance. Either way, I oppose "retarget to Universal Pictures" as there's more than one potential subject to claim the nominated redirect as a common name, and the winner of that trophy is certainly not the film production company. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrBro

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Diffusion semigroup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Year of Science

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

John Alston

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore

October 8

The Red Palace

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2024 Cornell

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in grand theft auto advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of characters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Restore redirected article [39] until and unless a valid AFD of the article is done (rather than a unilateral undiscussed and unproposed redirect). Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice per Softlavender and WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [40]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a perfectly valid target and alternative to deletion for character lists that are clearly without sourcing for independent notability. The plot section covers everything the reader needs to know about these characters. Sending this unsourced "list" to AfD is needless process unless you think deletion is a better outcome than redirection here. If the "list" title is the issue, then rename as "Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance" but you'd still have the old title pointing to that redirect. czar 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that many, many "Lists of GameTitle characters" articles redirect to their parent articles' Plot sections same as this does. It's a common redirection because these character lists are just as commonly created, almost always without regard to sourcing. czar 16:01, 15 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]

Delete There is no way that the original LoC would survive AFD, and the game itself is only 10ish hours, so even a (new) character section as redirect target seems overkill. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per Czar. Softlavender and Thryduulf suggest restoring and sending to AFD for procedural reasons. as Sgeureka recognizes, this will surely fail to be retained at AFD, which as Czar correctly points out, will likely lead to a redirect. I see no reason to go through that process. Thryduulf points to WP:BLAR, but I see nothing there requiring us to restore it or go through AFD, since no one appears to be arguing for the article to restored.
I'm confused by Steel1943 and Sgeureka's insistence that the redirect target be an actual list. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a fine target without any modifications. We can and routinely do redirect list titles to articles which discuss the list subject but aren't lists. Daask (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Keep/Retain as no list exists at the target. Other list redirects may exist but because they haven't yet been discussed at RfD. Agree with Czar's compromise of moving the BLARd page to Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance and refine to Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters. Make it a move without redirect and delete the other nominated entries. Jay 💬 13:47, 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) 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

Predictions of the end of Facebook → Facebook (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Predictions of the end of Twitter → Twitter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Keep End of Facebook and refine to Facebook#Userbase, the last paragraph of which has content on predictions of the end of Facebook. Weirdly enough I can't actually find anything like that for Twitter, despite the widespread doomposting after Musk bought it, but I would expect it would be worth a sentence or two at least in Twitter under Elon Musk or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of Facebook one: mentioned but I don't think it's that plausible a search term, nor something it makes sense to link to from other articles, but it does no harm. Delete Twitter one unless mentioned somewhere, in which case (weakly) keep or retarget as appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine the Facebook one per Rusalkii, above. Delete twitter one, it can be recreated if/once information about the many news articles speculating about the end of twitter under Elon is added to an article. Fieari (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged Predictions of the end of Twitter as {{R from merge}}. Note that Predictions of Facebook's end would also need to be retargeted if the nominated one is. Jay 💬 09:37, 17 September 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]

Refine the Facebook one per Rusalkii. Delete twitter one per Fieari. No prejudice against recreation if a suitable target exists. Daask (talk) 15:20, 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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:Highlights

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Draft:Engineering

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

First Americans

First Americans → First American (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The First Americans → Indigenous peoples of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
First settlers of the Americas → Peopling of the Americas (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
First North Americans → North America's Forgotten Past (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Hm. First American only links Indigenous peoples of the Americas, though maybe should link Peopling of the Americas as well; if not, then the plural "First Americans" should be considered unambiguous given the other disambiguation page entries. The last redirect points at a series of historical fiction books, which is probably not the primary topic. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 02:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like all of these should redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Yuchitown (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First Americans and The First Americans should both point to Indigenous peoples of the Americas because nothing on the First American dab page could be plural other than "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". First settlers of the Americas should be deleted as it could mean several things, gets no views, and has no incoming wikilinks. First North Americans should definitely stay as is, because it can only mean the book series previously at that title; it is virtually never used to refer to indigenous peoples. Bottom line: retarget the first, keep the second and fourth, and delete the third. Station1 (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this suggestion. That sounds reasonable. Yuchitown (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: What else could First settlers of the Americas mean? It looks unambiguous to me. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Indigenous peoples of the Americas versus Peopling of the Americas, the first thing that popped into my mind, rightly or wrongly, was European colonization of the Americas. Station1 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

- I support Station1's solution. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese opera

Japanese opera → Theatre of Japan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Noh. "Japanese opera" is a phrase used in that article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Noh and the arguably more "operatic" Kabuki could plausibly be called "Japanese opera", and often have been: "Kabuki is Japan's opera. Dramatic storylines featuring sword-fights, ghosts, and love affairs are brought to life by gorgeously clothed performers." Theatre of Japan explains this well enough. A look through google suggests Japanese opera could only ever be a disam page, although there are some modern Western-style operas. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to Musical forms of theatre in Japan and its principal traditional forms Noh and Kabuki. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete As-is, this redirect is incredibly confusing: it brings the unsuspecting reader to a page that says nothing about opera. That said, what did the searcher expect to find? An opera company or theater in Japan? An opera written by a Japanese composer? A native Japanese opera-like theater genre? Garbage in, garbage out, we should not answer an open-ended question with a random response or even a collection of these. Викидим (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what they would have expected to find is presumably something fitting in Category:Opera by country. So maybe garbage out, but definitely not garbage in. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this interpretation is the most plausible. Alas, we do not have a text similar to French Opera. Викидим (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I honestly expect that someone typing this into search is looking for Kabuki; I think the correct "answer" is Noh; and I think an "Opera by country"-type result would be the one expected by most wikipedia editors, but we don't have it. So I come down to "let people use the search engine". -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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

Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology → Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep See [41] from the university's site. Relevant section: "Baba Saheb Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Etawah was established during the year 1994-95. This college is a faculty of Technology of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur-U.P." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

All-Star Batman

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Shady Sheehy

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

Pokémon Fushigi no Dungeon Red (plus that other one)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alicia Douvall

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

Democracy Index

Democracy Index → The Economist Democracy Index (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Democrasy Index → Democracy indices (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not sure how primary the Economist index is for the title-case name, but these should point at the same target. 1234qwer 1234qwer4 20:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Democracy Index: I too am not sure how primary the Economist index is. On the one hand one could say that a generic term should point to the general article rather than an article about one particular index (though to be pedantic, the generic term would be "Democracy index", not "Democracy Index"). On the other hand, I can think of reasons why keeping the present redirect might be better. The article Democracy indices mentions a number of indices, but the Economist Democracy Index is the only one containing the expression "Democracy Index", which could be taken as indicating that it's a primary meaning, as it is probably the one most likely to be searched for under those words. There's also the fact that the redirect Democracy Index was created by moving the article which is now titled The Economist Democracy Index, but which had been at Democracy Index for 16 years (apart from a period of 32 minutes when a disruptive editor moved it to another title, and it got moved back quickly) so changing the redirect title could break links. There are currently 588 internal links to it, and there may be external links, or links on individual users' computers or whatever. taking into account all of those considerations, I am in favour of keeping the redirect Democracy Index → The Economist Democracy Index.

(2) Democrasy Index: This is an almost pointless redirect. It has had 2 views in the last 30 days (compared to 9,892 for Democracy Index. I therefore don't think it matters a lot what happens to it. However, "Democrasy Index", unlike "Democracy Index", is not contained in the title of any particular index, so there isn't any particular index with any claim to be a primary meaning. There's also a case for saying that in the absence of a strong reason for doing otherwise it's better to leave it where it is, because someone somewhere may expect it to be there, though in this case that's an extremely weak case. My conclusion is that, as I said above, it doesn't matter a lot what happens to this redirect, but on balance I just about prefer leaving it where it is.

(3) I don't find the argument that the redirects should both point to the same target convincing at all. There's no reason why what happens if someone searches for one title should be influenced by what would have happened if they had searched for the other.

WP:TLDR abbreviated version: Keep them both as they are. JBW (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Economist Democracy Index. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Democracy Index as is. Virtually everyone searching for or linking to Democracy Index is expecting this topic. In fact, the article really should be at the more concise title. The redirect averages 312 hits per day (huge for a redirect), almost 15% of its target's total, and double what Democracy indices gets.[42] Delete Democrasy Index as an unlikely misspelling. It has no incoming links and almost no views. No one will miss it. Otherwise leave as is or point to The Economist index; it's utterly unimportant. Station1 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Democracy Index pointing to the Economist. Retarget the misspelled one here as well. A bit of looking around does seem to suggest that this one gets the WP:PTOPIC, and if people are looking for another index, there's a hatnote to the more general article as well. Fieari (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tighten

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

Naoki Tanisaki

Naoki Tanisaki → T-Hawk (wrestler) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Vote to retarget the redirect Naoki Tanisaki → Naoki Tanizaki, per common mispellings under WP:POFR, which includes "Likely misspellings" as reasons to create redirects. The Kanji 崎 and 嵜 are both read as "さき" (saki), anyway, so it should be categorized as a possible mispelling for Tanizaki.

I do agree with the nom that there is no reason for it to be redirecting to T-Hawk (wrestler), though. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 03:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of swears

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

Ansem

Ansem → Xehanort (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Keep and then add Hatnote to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Ansem the Wise. Xenahort is probably the primary topic as he is a main antagonist. Ansem the Wise seems to be more of a side character/ plot twist. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the assessment of ansem (ansem, not ansem) is... not wrong, and i don't know if i love or hate that fact cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a hatnote to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Ansem the Wise - per Lenticel, also Ansem, Seeker of Darkness was created first, predating Ansem the Wise's introduction by 2 years (and the name by nearly 4 years). (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REtarget to Characters of Kingdom Hearts where both are mentioned; add a hatnote for Ansem Smart (アンセム・スマート) who appears in Let This Grieving Soul Retire! -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Häxans förbannelser

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

@Jay: Yes, but Swedish is spoken in Finland, as explained in the article I linked to in my comment, so it does have affinity. I just wanted to clarify that. Cremastra — talk — c 01:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Towel Trick

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3RL

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Obstipation

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

Alison Chabloz

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cards Against Disney

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enigmatic Man

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mr. Bland

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Affine cone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Rio Este (desambiguacion)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gedko Powało

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

King Roland → Spaceballs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Point to Roland (disambiguation) and add uses there -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only king mentioned on that dab page is a character in Might and Magic that doesn't have their own page. Roland of Galloway is not mentioned on that page, but rather is listed at Roland (name). Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shiro sAGISU

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banana Guard

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banapassport

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Billy Rowan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Charlotte Bishop

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Decco Bishop

Decco Bishop → List of Fair City characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

Incorrect that the character appears only within a reference. Decco is mentioned as Samantha Bishop's father, and some relation with Xavier Bishop. However, a better target would be Fair City#Social realism, related to life in prison. Jay 💬 16:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BlockParty (game portal)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Boussh

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Burin en-bec-de-flute

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

January 1, 2003

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

October 6

Scared Shitless

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William B. Cox

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Rush Limbaugh/Chicom

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Britney Spears 7th studio album (Britney Spears album)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:MBTI Instrument

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore templates

Minister for Cities

Minister for Cities → Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government#List of ministers for cities (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Minister for cities → Cabinet Office#Ministers and Civil Servants (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia) since that article is no longer a redirect in and of itself. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the redirect (Minister for Cities), I wasn't aware that the Minister for Cities (Australia) page existed already. In that case, I am happy for the redirect to be deleted straight up or redirect to Minister for Cities (Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – if that's the primary topic, it should be moved to the title "Minister for Cities", and if it's not the primary topic then "Minister for Cities" shouldn't redirect there. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added the lowercase Minister for cities redirect to this discussion as they should both lead to the same place. The target section of that redirect no longer mentions a minister for cities though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Set index this and similar titles seem to be created regularly in different parts of the world with none obviously primary. In a few minutes searching I found all the following:
- City Minister,
- Regional minister#Developments since 2010
- Minister for Planning (New South Wales)#Cities
- Minister for Cities (Australia)
- Minister for the Environment and Water (Australia)#List of ministers for cities and the built environment
- Angus Taylor (politician)#Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation
- Minister for Cities and Rural Areas (mentioned at Frederiksen II Cabinet#List of ministers)
- Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population (mentioned at First Morrison ministry#Outer ministry
- Minister for cities and urban development (Cote D'Ivoire, mentioned at François Amichia)
- State Secretary for Cities (mentioned at Borne government#State Secretaries)
- Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy and a "Minister for cities" (mentioned at Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care (Scotland)
(some might be duplicates, I've run out of time to sort and sanitise). Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The UK had a Minister from Cities from 2011-15, before the post was merged into other ministries, see Regional_minister#Developments_since_2010. The UK also has the similarly named City Minister (2008-present), which is actually responsible for the City of London financial district not cities, but could easily be confused. Thryduulf has found several other similarly named positions in other countries. So while the Australian post might be the extant position that most closely matches the exact redirect phrasing, it would be better if both capitalisations led to a Minister for Cities (disambiguation) page. Modest Genius talk 10:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving Minister for Cities (Australia) → Minister for Cities and moving Minister for Cities → Minister for Cities (disambiguation). The Australian portfolio (being extant) is the primary topic. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate/set indexify per Thryduulf and Modest Genius. Term is too generic for a primary topic redirect to a specific position. C F A 💬 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A requested move was made regarding these redirects and procedurally closed + no consensus because this discussion is ongoing; permalink: Special:Permalink/1240763459. Fork99 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There is also a Ministry of Cities in Brazil. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Disambiguate/setindexify at minister for cities; as WP:DIFFCAPS it should not redirect to the Australian topic in any case. A generic term and multiple non-Aussie uses; the lower case form would be appropriate for grouping in "secretary" etc. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Music Invasion

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List over Swedish Artists by Albums and Singles Sold

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Dota 2 heroes

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Online education

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

Footman Frenzy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

26, November, 2006

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

January 3, 2003

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Undermine (Warcraft)

Undermine (Warcraft) → Warcraft#Azeroth (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

Retarget to World of Warcraft: Cataclysm as {{r without mention}} for now; could easily be covered there. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an invitation to add more unwanted fancruft. No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undermine is a fictional location in the Warcraft universe. The Undermine is supposedly on the Isle of Kezan, in the southern part of Azeroth. The 20 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undermine (Warcraft) was merge and redirect [to Azeroth (Warcraft)]. The 28 November 2007 consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azeroth (Warcraft) was (merge and) redirect to Warcraft universe. On 18 December 2007, Warcraft universe moved to Warcraft (series). In December 2009, Warcraft (series) moved to Warcraft (unnecessary disambiguation). There was a consensus to mention "Undermine" in the Warcraft article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final version of ==Undermine== in Azeroth (Warcraft), before its "merge":

===Undermine===
The Undermine is believed to be the home island of the goblins, and is ruled by the Goblin Princes of Trade who hold their slave pens and palaces there. Undermine exists partially on the world's surface, but most of it is underground. It is primarily a series of volcanic caverns, tunnels and chambers that span out of the Isle of Kezan through the ocean floor, connecting to adjacent smaller islands to the west. Aside from the goblins and their slaves, the tunnels are also inhabited by a strange breed of purple-skinned goblins named hobgoblins. They are larger than regular goblins and they rarely live to three years of age. They were created by alchemical experiments on goblin subjects during the Second War.

The merge template was removed at 02:05, 28 November 2007, with edit summary "both articles were redirected here", but no content was merged. This was a failure to implement the consensus. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of Undermine was finally added at 01:31, 12 December 2008:

The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of December 2008, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series.

Another mention was added 16:56, 2 March 2009:

The majority of media in the Warcraft universe takes place upon a planet called Azeroth. This planet has ~~three~~four continents, named the Eastern Kingdoms, Kalimdor, Northrend (the world's polar cap) and Undermine (considered home land of the Goblins)...

A 12:20, 26 June 2009 edit changed this text:

~~The goblin capital is Undermine, a city beneath the surface of the island of Kezan. As of March 2009, Kezan has not been included in any game in the Warcraft series.~~ Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine.

Mention of "not been included"/"yet to be visited" was restored 01:02, 31 July 2009:

The Goblin continent of Undermine, has yet to be visited in any entry of the Warcraft series.

This was removed again @16:25, 25 August 2009: "as stated before... undermine is not a continent, and the number of major landmasses has not yet been decided due to the fact that there are unknown lands where pandarens and maybe more".
Text was changed @16:28, 25 August 2009:

Azeroth has ~~four~~ three known continents... Two other major islands are Kezan (where the Goblin city Undermine is located, introduced in WoW:Cataclysm) and Zandalari

Text was again changed @14:11, 18 September 2009:

~~Goblins are a neutral, mercantile race based in the underground city of Undermine.~~ the various goblin business cartels based out of the city of Undermine now supply both factions, though they have closer ties with the Horde.

On 27 October 2009, the last mention of Undermine in Warcraft was "split per WP:BOLD" to Races and factions of Warcraft. Later, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and factions of Warcraft closed as redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft.
Seems all this content which hasn't been cited to reliable sources has been undermining the principles of Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058, in terms of action, what would you like to be done for this redirect and this discussion? Jay 💬 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content was merged to Azeroth (Warcraft) in 2007, and I have tagged the redirect as {{R from merge}}. However the merging user:Atama did not mention the source in the edit summary but only summarized as Added information about Undermine. I guess we need to keep the user edit history of the redirect page for attribution. Jay 💬 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texvc

Texvc → Wikipedia:Texvc (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

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

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

Delete. Mainspace -> Project namespace -> MediaWiki page = at least one WP:XNR too many. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? In what way is this harming anybody or anything? Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too many redirections initially starting in a namespace not related to its final target. Such a title being in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (the redirect's target) makes sense, but not from the article namespace. That, and the acronym seems like it may be a subject which has either WP:REDYES potential as either a standalone article or a subtopic to add into TeX or AMS-LaTeX per the very text on the target of Wikipedia:Texvc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no consensus to delete, but this double redirect is messy. Soft retarget to mediawikiwiki:texvc. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, target interferes with searching for mainspace targets such as Texvalley. Not an encyclopedic article, and distracts real searches for real articles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundle TeXvc with this. Jay 💬 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per TechnoSquirrel69, which would resolve the double redirect issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency

Feel status minus Actual status Inconsistency → Body image (neuroscience) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

It's an index [43], that could indeed be listed at FAI. The capitalisation *seems* to be correct, although I'm not sure why the authors chose to capitalise it this way. In other sources [44] [45], sentence case seems to be preferred. I don't think there's enough information to write an article, but it might merit a mention at the target. Cremastra (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apologies already for the wall-of-text input:

The term (with same sort-of-dopey captialization) was indeed added in 2014 (by the redirect's creator) and still present up until a reworking in late July 2021. I have taken the liberty of re-adding the mention, as I discern no reason for its removal (made by an editor inactive since 2023). Per Cremestra and the mention in several papers, it seems notable enough for a mention at the target as well as the FAI dab page.

I'm dubious as to the usefulness of the redirect due to its length, although it comes up nicely as the only choice when I type in "Feel status". However, if we keep it, I'd like to change the caps; although correctly matching the original 2014 paper's use, it's different on both the 2016 [2] and 2020 [3] papers mentioned by Cremestra. I personally prefer the last, from Social Science & Medicine, which uses hyphens, which seems (of the three styles) most easily understandable and conformant to English usage (and therefore what I used when restoring the text). In one paper's reviews Zaccagni (original paper's lead researcher) acknowledged a lack of facility with English (though the caps weren't explicitly mentioned); I don't know how much leeway we have in choosing a style. I do think it an unlikely capitalization for a WP user to type in, so I would lean toward Keep, but sentence-case it. It just looks wrong otherwise. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lean towards keep but sentence-case it per JohnFromPickney, especially given multiple other papers have politely overlooked the idiosyncratic punctuation. The target should be refined to Body image (neuroscience) § Measurements. Cremastra — talk — c 19:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farage riots

Farage riots → 2024 United Kingdom riots (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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

My quick google search showed that this is very much a term that has been used in reliable sources [46][47][48][49] and sources that may or may not be reliable (I've not looked in detail) [50][51][52][53] (and also a use in The London Economic titled "Farage Riots trend as Reform UK kick off conference" the filter won't let me link to). Many of the uses in both sets are quoting Nigel Farage complaining about others using the term, some of them attribute the term to him. I'm not sure whether a mention of the term at either the rioting article or Nigel Farage's article is due, but it's not a suggestion that can be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the due diligence, but I won't withdraw my nomination unless it is mentioned in the article... non-neutral redirects without sources seems like a BLP violation, doesn't it? -1ctinus📝🗨 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsthump is a satirical website, but the first four sources seem reliable (the Instagram link being a broadcast interview on LBC radio). I've also heard this phrase being used on podcasts and in the media, and the stats[54] seem to show people are searching for it, I think it's a keep. Orange sticker (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I created this redirect not out of agreement with the term, but rather because I had seen the name used to refer to these riots frequently at the time on social medias and on some reliable (and less reliable) news sites, as Thryduulf found. The term is certainly biased, I do admit that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around redirects. My rationale was simply to help readers who may know these riots as the Farage Riots to get to the appropriate article.

Anyway, I understand your reason for proposing deletion. I personally do not have enough knowledge on the subject of the article to integrate mention of this nickname in a well written manner. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for editing! Mittzy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, still unmentioned. We're in WP:BLP territory here, so this needs to be cited to a reliable source. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RSURPRISE due to still being unmentioned in the target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabage truck

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mick Armstrong

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