This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").
Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also§ Neutrality of redirects.
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See alsoWikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.
Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.
Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}~~~~
For this template:
Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}~~~~
If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.
To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template
may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.
Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Misleading redirect, as there was never planned to be a 2021 edition of the ICC Champions Trophy. As such, there is no information at target article about a 2021 edition. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a set index, but possibly a broad-topic article. Heavy vehicles seem to be primarily overweight trucks or equipment transporters. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 17:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬08:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created article which I've moved. This redirect isn't a likely search result because of its strange mixed capitalization. Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit on the fence about this one, because the one instance of the term being censored was regarding the film (see above), but ultimately it's plausible here too so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as implausible censoring. just say "b*tch" if you're that worried about the fuck words. of course, this means i'd consider "nightb*tch" to be a plausible redirect. don't you hate it when your stay at home wife sometimes transforms into a dog? that happened to my buddy eric once, and his week was ruined cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plausible censoring. Wikipedia is not censored, but a redirect is not content, it's a navigation aid. The fact that wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean our users necessarily know that, or that they won't self-censor themselves, or copy a search term from someone else who does. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not censored and shouldn't encourage any misguided notion that we'll de-censor self-censored search terms. If something's citeably referred to in censored fashion, that's different. The play Shopping and Fucking was frequently referred to in the media as "Shopping and F***ing", for example (e.g.), and that would be a legitimate redirect title. I'm kind of surprised that Shopping and F***ing doesn't already exist, now that I've looked for it. — Hex•talk16:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Thrustship" is not mentioned nor defined on the target page. The article that brought me it is also the only content page that links to it. Therefore, unless "Thrustship" is considered notable, there seems to be no good reason for this redirect to exist. ZFT (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Thrustship" used to be included at the current target, but that section was deleted. My opinion is that we should either restore that section, restore the separate article, or delete the redirect. ZFT (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The deleted section at the target has not been restored yet. Any opinion on the passing mention at the Star Wars species list? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬08:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
results gave me "things that make you go up" in general, but mostly hiking equipment. mentioned in #terminology as a synonym for spiral stairs, but it seems the meaning has been changed cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not ascensored Unlikely search. Obsolete ecclesiastical term[1] deriving from medieval Latin - Wiktionary would be a better place to search for ascensorium, although it doesn't currently have an entry for it. — Hex•talk16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was retargeted to Christmas Island in 2024, but that target was ruled out in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18 § Coat of arms of Christmas Island. Someone-123-321 requested G4 speedy deletion, but I declined since pages can't be speedied if there's a non-speedyable revision in the history, and reverted to the original target. That said, the original target makes even less sense than Christmas Island as a target, as Christmas Island isn't mentioned once there, so this should still be deleted. And perhaps salted, given that this is the third attempt to make a page out of a thing that doesn't exist—fourth if you count a creation in 2006 containing only the string {{deletebecause|Doesn't have coat of arms.}}! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but I declined since pages can't be speedied if there's a non-speedyable revision in the history" imma be real here for a second, I didn't bother once to check the history before G4ing. consider this a WP:SELFTROUT if you will.
Delete, if there's no coat of arms (or similar emblem that some will say technically isn't a CoA but the public would) don't imply there is one. CMD (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not standard practice. I just spent a while looking through BrownHairedGirl's contributions in November 2018 and can't find anything comparable, so I don't know what she had in mind. But last year she was banned, so we can't ask her about it. — Hex•talk17:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template - {{R from possibilites}} - it may develop into a broad topic, or research may be able to be done now, but no broader topic exists rn. BarntToust21:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or develop into an independent article. Basically there's no reason to delete the redirect as long as the broader article doesn't exist. Simonm223 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WTAF, and specifically oppose any sort of justification with the possibilities template. It might very well be a fine topic for an article, but redirecting to a specific bill is pretty inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template as a redirect with possibilities. The broader topic has possibilities for development, but for now the target article cites reliable sources that indicate the topic has been noteworthily identified as a case of transphobia/anti-trans bigotry in the United States House of Representatives. If it is not templated, keep. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google disagrees, it seems lots of people use exactly this initialism. Some use it in all lowercase, some all uppercase, and some with the mixed case of TRaFoZSatSFM, but I'm seeing significantly more hits than I expected when I searched for it. Looks like a useful redirect for navigational aid-- the title is so long people naturally want to shorten it. I don't think a mention in the article is necessary, this is just to get people to where they want to go without having to type the whole thing. Fieari (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a misreading of the full case name, "COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND [...] v. THE UNITED STATES". The person's name was Colin Mitchel. "Robert Mitchel," whoever that is, is a different name that probably belongs to someone else who is not mentioned in the opinion or in the literature. "Colin Mitchel Robert" is nobody, so this is objectively not likely to be searched. The only reason this existed in the first place was to redirect a link from the relevant disambiguation page, Mitchell v. United States, to the relevant subsection about the case. I have made a proper redirect to serve that purpose at Mitchel v. United States (1835). lethargilistic (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is the tablature for (an incorrect way of) playing the opening riff, and is well-known among guitarists as the mark of the amateur. However, it isn't mentioned at present in the article - if reliable sources can't be found, then deletion is probably the way to go. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If that's the case, there's no mention of it at the target, and is thus misleading to someone searching for such information, and WP:RASTONISHing to anyone who doesn't already know what it is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should hear "this is guitarist slang" and think that's obscure. There are a lot of guitarists out there. Even if it's just rock guitarists, it's virtually every rock guitarist. lethargilistic (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, essentially per nom. no opposition to keeping it if a reliable source can be found and inserted into the article, but as is, i'm not in the mood to rely on already knowing a joke to figure out why a redirect exists consarn(formerlycogsan)01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you know that redirect that got up and slappedkissed the boys' face? now it's deletedliving happily in a b-class article with its 2 grammatical variants (which are not orphans and/or pending g6/g8 speedy deletion regarding the original redirect, which is very much still up)
Delete Wtshn - Google shows a split between the song and a particular trail in the Alps, with slight preference for the Alps. I don't think said trail is notable enough for a page, so this is ambiguous towards a non-notable topic and thus should be deleted.
Delete IBIATCL - Google shows this is ambiguous.
Delete EOTT - Exceptionally ambiguous, might want a DAB eventually.
Delete all except ISHFWILF (retarget to the Disturbed album, as above), otherwise a good bundle. That people might sometimes acronymize a title when writing about a song is no basis to make or keep such redirects. Anyone looking for information about the song can search for the song. Anyone trying to figure out what an acronym stands for can use Google. Wikipedia is not Google. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at wikt:argufy, this term has more to do with disputes and disagreements than a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. But I can't find an appropriate place to retarget it – apparently, we don't have an article on the general concept of disputes. (Disagreement (epistemology) and Objection (argument) are far too specific and theoretical, Dissent is only about disputes against authority, and Controversy is about a broad public state of affairs.) Another possibility is to target William Empson, who wrote Argufying: Essays on Literature and Culture (1987). jlwoodwa (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to the wikitionary entry. Nom is correct that the current target does not have information on what this word refers to, nor do we have an article that fits, but this is a plausible search term as the word is unfamiliar to many and wikipedia is a likely place to look for it. Sending them to wiktionary will serve them far better than giving them meaningless search results here where we don't actually have what they are looking for. I would not strongly object to redirecting to William Empson as an alternative, but I think the wiktionary soft retarget would better suit what I think the searcher is likely looking for (namely, "what is this word?"). Fieari (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barely mentioned in target article for its existence. Obscure company which developed four games and is not notable for any more than that, and there is no suitable redirect target with sufficient info on the company. MimirIsSmart(talk)14:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google shows this is ambiguous, and when it refers to a song, it refers to a song by a non-notable artist that expressly named the song P.I.T.N.O.L. Fieari (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant information at the target, except that the tournament expands from 8 teams to 10 in 2029. The redirect, based on the target at the moment, is misleading and WP:TOOSOON based on the expectation of finding relevant information when searching for this title. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has a fairly extensive history, with some content being merged to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 across a few edits before the article itself was restored until 2007. I don't know if there's an easy way to check if any of that content has persisted to the current article. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm, maybe disambiguate between brown dwarf and Jupiter (which is often referred to as a failed star, and even briefly mentioned there)? It's a bit of a stretch though, and the celebrity angle is plausible, but what would even be an appropriate target for that? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jupiter is not a failed star. Failed stars formed in the manner of stars, not in the manner of planets, and fail to ignite protium fusion. Jupiter has never been close to that, it is just a misconception that Jupiter is a failed star, and we should not propagate that misconception. Empirical studies [3] seem to indicate that a lower limit of star-type-formed objects are 4 Jupiter masses and larger. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plausible even if our stats show low usage. This is still a useful and helpful redirect for those who do need it, however few they may be. Fieari (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally, I'd say retarget to North Yemen (which is incorrectly marked as a dab page, more on that in a moment), which has a picture of the flag. It's short enough to accommodate information about the flag there, and if a spinout is warranted, that can happen without discussion here. However, I notice that the nominator has recently converted it from a dab page to an article (without removing the dab template or adding any sources). I don't know a thing about the history of the region and have no idea if this was reasonable or not. I'd encourage others that might to take a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete or what SMcCandlish said (which was unclear to me)? Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Flag of Yemen#North Yemen – I presume SMcCandlish got confused about something, given there is no article or article in the history at the current target. I prefer the current target to North Yemen, though it would do good to point it to the section of the article that actually talks about the North Yemen flag. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to worker bee unless a better target is found- I would think that someone searching for this is looking for a list of different bee castes... and it looks like worker bee has that information. I'm rather surprised the main bee article doesn't have it, and that there isn't an article entitled bee castes. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Like Mx. Granger, my first though was "scientific specialization in bees", which apparently is called Melittology. However, I'm fairly interested in biology, and Fieari had a totally different response. I think a WP:DAB is possible. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ratarget to one of the suggestions, or disambiguate? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole space in between though, which is why it's fine to have Blue sky redirect to the DAB page. Whereas BlueSky is just alternate capitalization to Bluesky, which is obviously the WP:PTOPIC as it is un-disambiguated. Navigation is there to help the user and likely many users accidentally think the social media platform is using a capitalized S, which is why they're landing on the DAB instead of the target as the DABs navigation shows. This redirect was only just created 4 months ago by @Bobby Cohn, so I think just pointing it straight to the likely target as alternative capitalization makes sense. Raladic (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent. If I recall, in creating the redirect, I was surprised (probably like many of our readers) to find out the social media company did not use CamelCase, but given the length of the dab page wasn't sure if it was determinative enough to claim it for the company. That is to say I would not be opposed to the proposed redirect as nominated, with the {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. I think whatever would aid our readers the most, but with that said, I'm not sure the wikinav results can confirm that the majority are landing on the page from the redirect with the intention on getting to the social media company, unless there's a way to tell that. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beware recentism. The social network has existed for about two years and, despite its trendiness, is not actually that big in the grand scheme of social networks. It has, for sure, enough significance to win out as the primary topic for Bluesky over Bluesky, Alberta and Bluesky Formation. But asserting it as the primary topic for a miscapitalization is quite another thing, especially when there are things on the DAB page that actually are capped that way, namely BlueSky Software and BlueSky Charter School.However, we can emphasize the social network a bit more, by starting the DAB with "Bluesky is a social media platform. Blue Sky, BlueSky or Bluesky may also refer to...". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the redirect is newer than the company, so it's hard to argue that there's recentism with regards to keeping it to the DAB. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's why I brought it to RfD as I wasn't sure if I should do it boldly, so I wanted more input from other editors. Raladic (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is Bluesky the primary topic? Notified of this discussion at Bluesky as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove section target, or possibly re-refine - I can't find the edit where the specific section marker "Conspiracism" was removed, but from scanning the article, I would bet that it was reworded to the "conspiracy ideation" phrasing that appears throughout the article, and thus the information is still all here. We could refine to the Conspiracy theory#Psychology or Conspiracy theory#Sociology sections, but the entire article does kinda talk about this, so my first choice would actually be to just remove the section target altogether and leave it just targeted at the article as a whole. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said on talk page, absolutely barely any articles say "Contemporary R&B" when referring to "Contemporary R&B" they just say "R&B". Having this re-direct stops lots of frustration of people redirecting to the Rhythm and Blues genre when it is a Contemporary R&B song. Please see here on how Contemporary R&B is mentioned, it's the modern day now and Contemporary R&B has gained far more notability and is now the WP:COMMONNAME and look at most Contemporary R&B article you'll notice most publications simply wrote "R&B" when citing Contemporary R&B.Eg HotNewHipHop,Billboard,The Guardian.This0k (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)} WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are 10,000 links to this redirect so a retarget or conversion into a disambiguation page should be made very carefully. Nevertheless, I believe that a disambiguation page between these two genres is probably ideal. J947 ‡ edits23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A conversion into a disambiguation page, when done carefully, is fine with me.
This can't have one target. The nom's propose change will also frustrate people; also, their rationale seems partially based on WP:RECENTISM. I will draft a disambiguation page. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there are substantial !votes by editors who are not sockpuppets, I'm not going to speedy close it. I've struck one of the sock's comments, while Liz has struck the other. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There was support for disambiguation and the draft is ready, however we need an opinion on J947's concern on how the 10,000 incoming links play out with the redirect's conversion to a disambiguation page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've already stated this in the past discussion @203.129.49.225 has linked here, and I'll have to say this again...
even if I did read those three films articles in my point of view or someone else's point of view, they'd be like "Who the hell is Leo?", and again, I'm not a Mothra expert, I'm only a Godzilla expert.
If those who don't know what this IP is referring to, I'll mention this quote stated in a past discussion stated by @121.45.246.200Mothra Leo is a fan name and its simply a rumor, besides if its a rebirth trilogy, the Mothra should be named "MOTHRA", not Leo, otherwise Toho should've changed the names of the trilogy to "Birth of Mothra Leo".
Disambiguate. The location (until 2022) of the Kazakh presidential palace seems like it's reasonably important enough in its own right that there isn't an obvious WP:PTOPIC here, so the primary title should be a dab. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)07:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with hatnote; this could go either way for me, but I lean towards keeping based on how large of a gap there is in pageviews, and the Kazakhstan square having been renamed also helps the PTOPIC case. Skarmory(talk •contribs)18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or disambiguate The other two are "surname-type" uses, while the current target is an alternate name. If kept, we can hatnote the two people pointed out by the nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ambiguous. Google Maps leads me to Zambia (the current target), Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Mentions on Wikipedia include Tanzania, Malta, India, and various German cities.
Disambiguate appears to be the safe bet in this instance, but there are a few complicating factors. While this is a common appendix to the name of a venue, in many cases it is a PTM. Additionally, this is a very frequent second name for a venue that we may or may not list as an alternative name on the relevant article. In general, this term varies between being a description and a genuine name for a place, meaning that a dab page that covers everything is near impossible. There are also trade show, Fairground, and the redirect Trade Fair Ground to be aware of. J947 ‡ edits02:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Simara" not mentioned anywhere at target, and the battle described at the target took place in 1944. There is a battle described at Corcuera#Modern history to which this may refer, but the term isn't used there either. Unless there is evidence this is a term in use, the fact this is disambiguated and the base name Battle of Simara does not currently exist suggests deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point in this redirect, her name is mentioned only twice here in a table. but she is also mentioned as a competitor/medalist in few other articles but none have enough content to anchor a redirect. Sports2021 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When disambiguating, this current redirect page should be renamed to Wang Qingyun (skater), for a redirect to be left behind that can be used as a target by WikiData; this would also preserve the AfD outcome pointed out by Hey man im josh -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little less certain about "Dionism". "Dionysiac" is the common adjective for Dionysus, and the noun "Dionysism" is also used occasionally I believe, but I haven't heard "Dionism" used before with respect to the god, and the term seems too short to be capable of referring clearly to him. Among mythological figures, Dione's name would seem the closest to "Dionism". If a mention of "Dionism" at the page for the Nietzschean concept would be appropriate, then that would be a good target, but in the absence of such a mention, a page related to gay men would probably be the best target. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. This phrase should neither be ever linked to from mainspace or be the title of an article in the future – where does REDLINK come in? And there is never any value in deleting non-libellous page history. J947 ‡ edits00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Page history was a stub that was BLAR'd for "being an advertisement", but I honestly don't see it as an advertisement, just as somewhat poorly written, lacking in sources, and pretty vague. I agree there probably exists enough information in reliable sources somewhere to make Scuba diving in Ecuador a potential article... but we don't have it now. Some editors would reach for the WP:TNT, but I tend to like keeping old history even if it's not the greatest. Dunno what to do here though. Fieari (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two different yet similar cases. "birmingham screwdriver" is an apparently obscure uk slang for hammer, as a reference to people from birmingham being muscleheads, while "irish screwdriver" seems to be... some brand of vodka? both terms are unmentioned in the target, and results mostly gave me miscellaneous companies and actual screwdrivers cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectBirmingham screwdriver → law of the instrument, as that's where the expression is mentioned, and where the reader will best be able to understand what Birmingham screwdriver means.
DeleteIrish screwdriver. The only results I find referring to the "irish screwdriver" as a hammer are an urban dictionary entry and a tumblr post (though the tumblr post does point to Green, Jonathon. Casell’s Dictionary of Slang - 2nd Edition. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 2005 as a source for the expression meaning hammer). Other than those, other mentions of "irish hammer" on google are referring to a cocktail FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanishingly few page views per month(21) for a page that gets millions of views every week. There are a lot of people named "Mian Page", and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this. Catalk to me!01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment: "and Mediawiki already corrects for simple typos like this" I tested this now, it doesn't.)
Weak delete Unlike what some others are saying, I can relatively plausibly see someone accidentally transposing the I and A keys together. However, this is literally the first page you see when you open up Wikipedia we're talking about here, so people manually going to the Main Page is irrelevant here. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plausible type, and SOME pageviews show that it is being hit at all. No reason to delete therefore unless a newer or better target was recommended. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. Which 10 redirects? Can you describe your test in detail? What has Special:RandomRedirect got to do with the redirect under discussion? Jay 💬08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're 10 random redirects (that result from clicking Special:RandomRedirect, 10 times), unrelated to the one under discussion. The point is to combat the dangerous assertion that the number of pageviews that this redirect receives is in any way minimal. J947 ‡ edits10:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pageviews (so per nom, I suppose). That the target receives a high number of views doesn't change anything. This also seems unambiguous as a search term. I don't know what someone searching this could be looking for other than the main page; I'm not seeing any people called "Mian Page" that we cover. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Raaab" is maybe a plausible typo, but "Raaaaaab" seems wholly unnecessary. The question is at what point should we stop elongating "Raab". 1857a (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page was created as a spelling mistake -- "calsium" instead of "calcium". It does not seem to make sense to keep this for a newly created page. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this retarget. A character in a book is different from a character in a TV show based on a book. Obviously the current target is no good, but since this character is not mentioned at Silverwing (novel), I think deletion is better. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an alternate spelling of "sarsenet", a type of silk fabric. unmentioned in the target, though there are mentions of both spellings in other articles (but only two incoming links), and it gets steady views, so maybe there's a more fitting target i'm missing? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sarcenet" does not mean "silk ribbon", but was a kind of silk fabric used for bed hangings and curtains, reference Clive Edwards, Encyclopedia of Furnishising Textiles (2007), p. 184.Unoquha (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has been proposed for deletion a couple of time using various unsuitable processes like PROD or inadmissible CSDs. However, the corresponding stub on the Albanian Wikipedia has recently been deleted (see sq:Arben Isaraj) and the person here is not mentioned at target and there is no source for their association with the party, so it may be best to delete. —Kusma (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Τhe fact that we need to discuss, spend other people's time and burden the various procedures for such obvious things is a sign of a bureaucratic mentality that could usefully be avoided. LefterDalaka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
either only mentioned in passing or unmentioned. those places (not zones, sonic cd doesn't call them zones) are really as notable on their own as any other zone not named green hill, stardust speedway, or death egg. admittedly a little iffy on metallic madness, though, as it was also in maniacogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a move request, not a RFD. I agree that the butterfly isn't a primary topic. Animal subgenera are conventionally put in parentheses following the genus; the redirect should be Polyommatus (Bryna) if following zoological convention. Subgenera may also be written on their own; Bryna has been treated as a genus in the past, and I don't think it is currently even accepted as a subgenus; Bryna (butterfly) would be another way to form the redirect (leaving it ambiguous whether it is being treated as a synonymized genus, accepted subgenus, or synonymized subgenus). Plantdrew (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned at the target, and interpreted this way as a general phrase, could just as likely refer to Age disparity in sexual relationships, but it's even more ambiguous, as this tends to be a catch phrase used by older folks as a slogan that life doesn't have to slow down when you get old, as for active seniors, or just people who feel young at heart, etc. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a person is searching this phrase up instead of a more conventional search term, then they are most likely looking for information about the phrase itself, which the current target does not provide. Catalk to me!01:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a bit of a surprising redirect; the way it's being used is to refer to a tongue-in-cheek joke about relationships with minors, which is different than the ordinary way that this is used (to generally talk about age gaps in relationships, or to comment on someone's appearance). I don't see a good place for this to point, and thus I favor deletion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did mark this as reviewed with the thought process that it's an entirely incorrect term, but it leads to a relevant article about what someone searching the incorrect terminology may have actually been looking for. I recognize it may too non-neutral to be an accepted redirect, and I will mentally recalibrate if this ends up deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but as a note to Hey man im josh: I think that's a reasonable idea and I don't disagree with your thought process. If this does not get deleted, someone please make sure it ends up with a {{R from non-neutral name}}. Tessaract2Hi!16:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:RDELETE points 2 and 10, this redirect not only could plausibly be expanded into into an article (See prior edit history), but also creates significant confusion (The primary article linking to this is Chongqing, which this redirects back to, creating a recursive link) - Additionally, there are next to no pageviews (Prior to proposing this redirect be deleted), suggesting that it's not used frequently Gmoat (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both should point to "Wader (American)", I don't really see any evidence that the term "wading bird" is regularly used for waders/shorebirds in any part of the world. TBH "Wader (American)" is a bizarre title that should probably be moved to "Wading bird". Somatochlora (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from an article linking wading bird as a more general term. Depending on how this closes, someone might want to retarget those types of links. Its usage onwiki can be found here. Clovermoss🍀(talk)06:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Same question as the prvious relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬10:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominations) Create dab page to First term#Indy Intel Agencies, First term#Other Indy Agencies, Second term#Indy Intel Agencies, Second term#Other Indy Agencies.
Archaic term that I see used in older texts to refer to corals. However, what's more relevant for us is Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale in which he notes that "coral" is ambiguous between the organisms themselves and the hard stuff their colonies leave behind. He ressurects the older term "polypifer" to refer to the organisms. Thus, it would seem that coral polyp is the optimal target. But that page redirects to the nom's proposed target, which discusses polyps generally, not just those of corals, I think. The problem is that Polyp (zoology) discusses polyps generally, unrestricted to corals while coral discusses much more about corals than the living polyps themselves. Sigh. Refining to Coral#Anatomy could be quite nice, and I think I prefer that target over the nom's proposal, which is my second choice. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the Dating (disambiguation) per the others. "Dating style" is far more likely to refer to romantic dating...if you're looking for calendars, you'd use "date style", not "dating", otherwise it sounds more like it would refer to types of radiometric dating, which would still be a better target than the calendar article. But either way, it's pretty vague, and the dab page is the way to go. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let the search function do its job, it does not need retargeting to a DAB page which would arguably be unhelpful for those searching specifically for "dating style". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) It's possible, but much more likely Wikipedia. Even if they aren't, they should see their error, so I don't think a hat note is necessary. All the best: RichFarmbrough13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC).[reply] 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete since having it means the user won't see the error. Better to see a redlink. But then I'd feel that way about most bad typos, so why do we generally make redirects for such things? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as highly used. On the off chance that the reader is indeed looking for Wikimedia, there are links in the first paragraph and infobox of the current target. J947 ‡ edits01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another one of billions of possible typos, no more deserving a redirect than any other. This one is especially not deserving since, as pointed out, there are multiple possible resolutions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it likely that someone would search for this long of a string even though it's part of the lyrics of the poem. Even if someone was unfamiliar how to search it, it's likely that it would be "because you are love" and variations thereupon. So, I think this redirect should be deleted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the universe said keep. This line is quoted in full in the article. The use of the "and the universe said" motif is discussed in the article's prose, citing the Irish Independent. And a tattoo of this exact quote appears in the article, a freely-licensed re-shoot of a photo used in Gough's blog post about the poem, which repeatedly invokes (a slightly misquoted version of) the line. I think that's enough to establish the significance of the complete line. (Note: I created the target article, but did not create this redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the universe said "screw the joke-y !keep text i was gonna do because Tamzin beat me to it"
Keep – the whole "not viable search result" argument falls flat considering the quote is likely to pop up on a suggested target when typing the search in. Also, full quote indeed stands in article. BarntToust12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Entirely plausible someone knows this line but doesn’t know the official name of the poem. Line is quoted in full in the article, and discussed at length. There’s an image of the line as a tattoo, showing how the line is memorable and important to people. What more do you want? Fieari (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There actually isn't an official name! By the 2022 public domain release, Gough had taken to calling it the End Poem, but that's really just a descriptive name others gave it, i.e. the poem you see at the end of the game. (doi:10.4324/9781315673363 at 140 sorta gets at this). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's even more reason to keep! If there isn't an official name, people are going to try whatever comes to mind if they want to find it, including random lines from the poem, but ESPECIALLY the more memorable lines! Fieari (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a recognised synonym of the species it is redirected to. Absent from BacDrive, LPSN, and Uniprot - referenced in target article (which needs to be moved anyway) but seemingly by mistake. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not generally seem to be the Primary Topic for "Breena". From my searching, it seems to generally refer to a Magic The Gathering character, but in general I can't find much about Breena. Casablanca 🪨(T)00:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak disambiguate this term. There's also Breena Clarke and Breena Palmer, which I'm not 100% sure is enough for a disambiguation page. I also can't find anything about Breena the Demagogue (the Magic: The Gathering character in question, who may or may not be worth mentioning on this disambiguation page) or how this name is connected to Sabrina Carpenter other than her playing some characters with that name (I get it, "Breena" might be used as a diminuitive and/or nickname for "Sabrina," but still, I'm not sure how Carpenter is known by that name). I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. Regards, SONIC67804:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, disambiguate. For me, a Google Books query for the term doesn't bring up Carpenter at all. Even just the existence of two people with the given name is quite sufficient, because we know there's a contingent of readers who look up names, mostly to get to biographies, but also to learn about the names themselves. --Joy (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without additional qualification, these terms seem a bit too broad and U.S.-centric to make good redirects to this specific topic. The ones lacking "river" in particular could refer to many different things. "National Scenic Waterways" is not a term described at target. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as long as there is not a better target. These seem perfectly fine for getting readers to what they would be looking for. BD2412T14:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For whatever reason mass-creators, rather than recognising that possibly they had made a mistake by creating two articles with the same name about supposed "villages" in the same area with the same name, and not having any other way of disambiguating, created articles with co-ordinates in the title to disambiguate them. In the vast majority of cases there aren't two villages with the same name in the same area, and what they were doing was using a source that had errors in it. GEONet Names Server is a classic example of a source that includes a lot of these kinds of errors - typically what's happened is there are two (or more) potential locations for a single place (which may or may not actually be a village) and both locations are logged in the database, so there appear to be two places with the same name close to each other.
Most of these articles have since been deleted or redirected. Where they were redirected you end up with a redirect like this one, but it simply isn't plausible that anyone is going to type this location - the wrong location - into a search bar. In reality even if it were correct I don't think anyone is going to type it. FOARP (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For whatever reason mass-creators, rather than recognising that possibly they had made a mistake by creating two articles with the same name about supposed "villages" in the same area with the same name, and not having any other way of disambiguating, created articles with co-ordinates in the title to disambiguate them. In the vast majority of cases there aren't two villages with the same name in the same area, and what they were doing was using a source that had errors in it. GEONet Names Server is a classic example of a source that includes a lot of these kinds of errors - typically what's happened is there are two (or more) potential locations for a single place (which may or may not actually be a village) and both locations are logged in the database, so there appear to be two places with the same name close to each other.
Most of these articles have since been deleted or redirected. Where they were redirected you end up with a redirect like this one, but it simply isn't plausible that anyone is going to type this location - the wrong location - into a search bar. In reality even if it were correct I don't think anyone is going to type it. FOARP (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was created as the result of this deletion discussion but the problem remains that I found no evidence that anyone uses this transliteration of the supposed Russian, if only because it's supposedly named after a Mr. Snow, whose name was therefore supposedly transliterated into Russian. We really need to avoid making up fake English names for things through our own transliterations, so this redirect needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the validity of this spelling, an article existed at this title from 2006 until last week. Since then, the spelling has been picked up by several travel sites in both Russian ([9]) and English ([10]) according to my Google searches. I think keeping is warranted given this error has now been in circulation for some time. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly on the weak side of noms, but whatever. a "whodunit" is a mystery story where the mystery is the criminal. a "howcatchem" (or the longer name used in the target i guess) makes catching the very known criminal the mystery. a "howdunit" is somewhere in between, referring to how the do was did. it can overlap with any amount of whodunit and howcatchem. is death note a howdunit? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep - Searching google shows at least one article that directly equates these as synonyms, even though if you just look at the word, it doesn't seem to be. [11] "Then there's the howdunnit, {...} These can be referred to as an inverse detective novel". I agree with cogsan that I wouldn't use this word this way, but there we go... a little scanning on social media shows that a lot of people use "howdunnit" and "howcatchem" interchangeably, which would make this the correct target. I'm not fully confident about this one though. Fieari (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More searching reveals more sources using "howdunnit" as a synonymn for "howcatchem" or the inverted detective story... including a plethora of hits on google scholar. So I'm removing the weak portion of my !vote. This synonym should probably be explicitly added to the article as well, given how many sources pop up. Here's just one as an example: [12], but the google scholar hits go on for pages and pages of results (some of which define it in the paper, others just use the word). Fieari (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has some use. Doesn't seem ambiguous with Canadas (disambiguation) to me; "a" and "s" are pressed by adjacent fingers on the same hand, so it seems unlikely to me that if your aim was to press one then the other that you would end up with two "a"s, unless both fingers are somehow placed over the "a" key. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly phonetic for "Canada, eh?" The page saw 47 total views in the full year prior to the nomination, so it's not particularly well-used, but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. And as pointed out, this one is ambiguous with Canadas. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect being used more than a significant proportion of articles, grasping at straws? If that's the case 90% of redirects should be deleted as little-used. I do certainly agree that this typo being equally plausible as one for Canadas is grasping at straws, given how the probability of a reader searching for Canada totally dwarfs that for Canadas. J947 ‡ edits06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: unambiguous and harmless. Search results show plenty of usage of this typo "in the wild", with "Canada" consistently being the intended meaning [13], ranging from social media posts to websites. There is no reason to delete this, but the very healthy and consistent page view stats [14], WP:CHEAP, and the lack of any ambiguity point to keeping. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Participants are still split between keeping and deleting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless, useful to someone (approx 50 hits a year is plenty to say this!), common and attested typo, WP:CHEAP applies, unambiguous target. I still do not understand the crusade a number of editors seem to have against typo redirects. It is written policy that common typos are to be kept… yes, unlikely typos are not good redirects, but then you get a wave of editors claiming literally every single typo is implausible despite evidence to the contrary. I just don’t get it. Fieari (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched around a little bit and I believe these redirects are referring to literally making pumps and breathing less loud. However, the current target is about a computer science concept, and I could not find a mention in related articles. Catalk to me!13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current redirect is the only remotely plausible one in the page history, else I would've probably deleted or draftified. But since it's not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure this works either. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clean-up after a blocked disruptive editor. No prejudice against good-faith creation if someone actually thinks such a redirect would be beneficial (as opposed to a red link). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pale Garden is a place added in the newest update of Minecraft, notable for featuring the newest monster creaking. I think the target provides information about whats the most notable about the place, which is the monster. Catalk to me!14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have thought that the WP:NOTBURO argument would be in support of quickly deleting junk redirects resulting from pages created in bad faith instead of going through huge bureaucratic discussions to find accommodation for them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally my argument would be same as your's, but since I believe the redirect should be kept, enforcing BURO would require pointlessly deletion and restoring/retargetting. Catalk to me!14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did say that there should be a redirect if someone thinks one would be beneficial, and since you do, I'm striking my above !vote. (Though I'm still not quite convinced that's an optimal target.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List_of_Minecraft_characters#Creaking. I do not agree that this target contains no information about the subject of this redirect. It tells you, 1) It is a biome location in Minecraft. 2) The biome is in greyscale. 3) The biome contains the monster known as "Creaking". There is no further information that is really needed, this says everything we're going to say about the subject, and since we have the information, we should provide it to the user when searched. Fieari (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an accurate description of the target article. Thus it is CHEAP to keep it. It works, it functions for potential searchers in the dropdown. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep this per the 65 IP and Someone-123-321. This may not be getting very many pageviews, but that doesn't necessarily make it implausible. We have a lot of "(died [year])" redirects (some articles even have that in the title) to provide some disambiguation from other topics, and this redirect is no exception. Regards, SONIC67804:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But with "Carthaginian" as a modifier in front? formatted like this? Is anyone really going to search for this with a weirdly formatted death date disambiguator? It's pretty silly to think that anyone is going to be helped by this. This is really a stretch, and there's no harm in deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian battleship Potemkin has the disambiguatory terms in front. King James I has the disambiguatory term "King" in front. It's also how people speak, "Carthaginian general X". And it's not weird to use "d." to indicate death date. Thus it should appear in the dropdown to allow you to select the general you want. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But like the redirect target, the stub is missing national forests, BLM lands, military lands, etc.. Not opposed to creating list articles at these titles of course, but until someone wants to undertake making a comprehensive list, these should be red. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The newly created list basically duplicates List of the United States National Park System official units#Alaska and related pages, is wildly incomplete since there's far more than NPS areas, and incorrectly includes sites that are affiliated but not actually federal land; this should draftified or also deleted. I don't think these should be hastily made just for the sake of it. Some states instead have a related list of protected areas that includes state lands. Reywas92Talk04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stuybbify/Listify per BD2412 above. Reywas92 above says that this duplicates the Park System article, but the whole point of this is that while there is overlap, this isn't an identical list-- federal lands include more areas than just the parks, although it will include the parks as well. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would already be a stretch without the spacing around the slash, but with it, it's well beyond implausible. If it's known as one or the other, people will search for one or the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stupid. I was under the assumption that this redirect was created recently and exists purely to try to call Aaron a bozo (which would indeed fit WP:G10), but turns out one look at the edit history tells me that this was likely in reference to some event that happened in 2014? Still, not mentioned in the article so deleteUser:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reason why Rogers would be the primary search target for people looking this term up, and I don't think a dab page would be reasonable here. No other reasonable target exists, and that leaves deletion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-namespace redirects need exceptional reasons to exist, and "shortcut to one person's talk page" isn't one of them. Seems like it might have been created as a gag, a very "Wikipedia in 2008" sort of thing. Creator vanished eight years ago so won't be able to contribute to this discussion. — Hex•talk13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for keeping at the time hinged around "they're plausibly of use", but the complete lack of direct usage in the succeeding 11 years demonstrate conclusively that our editors have sufficient common sense not to use them, and visit stats show that they're not actively being used to search either.
WP:Fag - 11 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 in a programmatic list of shortcuts, and the rest are discussions about the redirect itself
WP:FAG - 13 links, of which 1 on the target, 3 in programmatic lists of shortcuts, and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself
WP:FAGFP - 5 links, of which 1 on its talk page, 1 on the target and the remainder discussions about the shortcut itself. This was created while the WP:Fag RfD was running by one of its participants, not by anyone involved with maintaining the target page
The average daily visit count for each of these page titles during the past year is zero.
The unlikeliness of anyone ever requiring these redirects is reaffirmed by the low usage of the other shortcuts offered by the target page, which are:
WP:FIND-A-GRAVE - 2 links, which are the page itself and one of the aforementioned RfDs
WP:GRAVE - 8 links, including the the page itself, one of the aforementioned RfDs, and one person who thought they were linking to WP:GRAVEDANCING
All of these redirects also have an average daily visit count of zero.
Note: the creators of the two uppercase redirects have retired from the project, so will not be able to contribute to this discussion. — Hex•talk13:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the fully uppercase version Although the connections to a certain term are rather obvious, at the end of the day it also ends up being Find A Grave's (unfortunate) acronym and I could reasonably see someone shortening "Find A Grave" to "FAG" without knowing the implications. (this also means strong keep FAGFP)
As a queer person myself, I can't disagree more strongly with your assertion that "fag" is just another rude word on a par with "cunt". — Hex•talk13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my point at all. My point is that the word I won’t even write as an example by itself is not the same word when additional letters are added. I’m not equating it with cunt, I’m equating FAGFP with any word that contains an obscenity or slur ‘’as a substring’’ of that word. Examples I might equate it with are “roofage” and “Fagin”. Just as those two words mean something else and are recognizable as something else unrelated to the slur, I think that FAGFP is easily parsed as something other than the first 3 letter substring. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that theory is that roofage and Fagin are real words or names which can be pronounced, much like Scunthorpe, but "FAGFP" is a familiar syllable followed by a wall of consonants. The most likely way that someone would parse it would be "fag F P". Roofage also doesn't pose a similar problem (to humans, unlike dozy firewalls) because English speakers will correctly parse it in two chunks as roof-age. The dubious word is split between them and the "g" is pronounced differently. By contrast the initialism begins with a completely unambigous fag.
Either way, this is needless speculation because the initialism was created by someone after some similarly speculative talk in the 2013 RfD. It's not something which is actually used or likely to be used by anyone. — Hex•talk17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but WP:FINDAGRAVE and WP:FIND-A-GRAVE, which should maybe be retargeted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave, which I think is more likely to be what users outside the Wikiproject to which the current target belongs might be looking for. None of this is significant enough to warrant a three-letter redirect, especially not an offensive one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the latter three aren't actually part of this nomination. I think :GRAVE could reasonably be retargeted to :GRAVEDANCING since I did find an example of someone mistakenly using that way, so I'll nominate it separately once this has closed. — Hex•talk15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused WikiProject template shortcuts created in 2010 and 2021 respectively. Target has other, better shortcuts listed. — Hex•talk11:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of 960 links, over 900 are the result of a mistake in a message template used by VoABot II during a period in 2007. Of the rest, about ⅔ are editor mistakes and the remainder pages with lists of shortcuts. I don't see a particularly good target for this either. — Hex•talk12:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Catholic saints#A as WP:PTOPIC, or else Delete as ambiguous - The Lists of Saints page doesn't have any saints that begin with "A" because it's a list of lists, and we have lots of articles of the saints of different denominations and even different religions... but I think in the English speaking world, when you say you want a list of saints, I'm pretty sure people default to the Roman Catholic ones. If other editors disagree with this, then the only other option is to delete as ambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed an unsourced mention of this phrase at target. Even if a source were added, they're not the same thing: Per [15], there are allegations of sexual exploitation at the White Parties, but that's distinct from the alleged freak-offs in hotel rooms. If there's a place this should target, it's Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, but currently "Freak-off" only appears in citations there. If mentioned in the body of that article, I'd support a retarget. Else, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be genuinely used as a term to refer to the Diddy Parties, as is reported by reliablesources with respect to the lawsuit. So it's used, and it seems to be a reasonable search term for something related to this. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may require an expert on the region, which I am not. Regardless, the namespace is not mentioned in the targeted section nor the entire article about administrative units of Pakistan. Brahuistan is the name of a historic region and while it has a nationalist movement, I can find no evidence that it has been proposed as a new province of Pakistan, as implied by the redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed it from the target page since it no longer fits the criteria of the list (i.e., a multiple-time finalist in the World Class division). However, I would not be opposed to keeping it purely to preserve the page history. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on... the criteria of the list reads list of defunct Drum Corps International member corps, particularly those that have been finalists multiple times. The Legends Drum and Bugle Corps seems to satisfy that. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have not been finalists overall, only in the lower division (which most make since it is smaller). The only time a lower-division corps has made finals was the Magic of Orlando in 2002. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. There is no need for this, no important links to it nor is it of any substance. It's probably best to delete this redirect entirely as it has also been removed from the target article.
Keep That's the point. It's to make the concert hall easier to find since there are already a lot of places with the same name. Also as seen on Tabernacle (concert hall) it is often called "The Tabernacle" as with most concert halls have a "the" and are more likely to be searched for that way. The only other option is to disambiguate but I am against that as none of those links to it link anywhere else but the concert hall anyway. This0k (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to tabernacle, which is already the primary topic for "tabernacle." Most of my Google hits refer to the Biblical structure, and I even live near Atlanta where the current target is located. I am not opposed to retargeting to the DAB page, but that is my second choice. At any rate, do not keep. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The retarget won't make sense since a bunch of bands that have played at the concert hall are linked to this current target. It sould most likely have to be Disambiguated. This0k (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the DAB as the concert hall has 802 views and doesn't use the definate article in the title but the Notting Hill one has 212, the Machynlleth one has 18 and the Scottsville, Kentucky one has 15[[16]] and those do use the definate article in the title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tabernacle as WP:PTOPIC, which has a hatnote to the DAB. I think this is the best option, but I would not strongly object to targeting the DAB first, since the first link at the top is the PTOPIC in question. I do object to keeping the current target. If current wikilinks target this redirect, they should be piped or otherwise corrected. Fieari (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination has no basis in policy, see above. It should also be noted that when the nom says Another common example of Wikipedians putting neologisms and contemporary history first by redirecting common terms to recent and current events they are indulging in personal attack. Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice Delete per plain old common sense (Tevido already sums it up very well immediately above, and I don't really have anything much to add). This redirect is pretty plainly WP:RASTONISHing...anyone searching for this would have no particular reason to expect to wind up here. Second choice, very weak retarget to Hex (TV series)#Series 2 as the only matching title I could find, but that's...kind of iffy, and I'd favor simply getting out of the way of search results for something that obscure. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the fact that it required a talk page to explain the comment should be an ill enough omen for this redirect. even if the law of how to win every argument ever didn't exist, it would still be hopelessly vague cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. My (most a) joke answer is retarget to The Game (mind game). But probably weak delete unless there's a convincing argument toward a useful dab page since the term is probably generic enough otherwise. (RECENTISM doesn't really factor into this.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a old usenet trend. (Only a weak keep though, as on my time scrolling through Groups before they removed their usenet capabilities I couldn't find anything related to "You lose" and "Godwin's law" at the same time. My father grew up with usenet though, guess I'll ask him about this when he's not busy) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate along the lines suggested by Veverve. The most likely targets are "Byzantine Empire" and "Holy Roman Empire", but some of the others are plausible targets as well—though probably not "Third Reich", despite a bombastic claim to be a successor state. "Third Rome", covering all claimants to be successors to the Roman Empire, is a better alternative on a disambiguation page than listing all such claimants on the disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is this even a discussion? This redirect makes no sense. I'm sorry but it should be deleted because ???. Has nothing ti do with the article either.
Keep By far the most notable “ghost town tornado”; the 2003 Manchester, SD, tornado doesn’t even come close. Only tornado with RSs saying that it “turned Picher into a ghost town”. EF522:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to A/B testing. While the page doesn't contain the word "multivariant", this is clearly the concept being described, and I don't see why it would be preferable to link to a two-sentence summary of the article, rather than the article itself. While I think "multivariant" can be used as a synonym of "multivariate" sometimes in mathematical contexts, the latter is considerably more common I think (cf. [17]), and Hotelling's T-squared distribution, the current target of Multivariate testing, does not use such language. The user experience topic also appears to be the most prominent among search results for the phrase. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬19:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the Roman colonial empire of the Roman Republic; the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire; the post-Republic East+West Roman Empire. Contrasts with the New Roman Empire. This is a succession of the evolution of the Roman Empire, from colonial empire adjunct to a republic, to the conversion of the republic into rule by Caesars, to the collapse of the west and the eastern rump Roman Empire being called the Byzantine Empire by Western European scholarship (though politically, it is the same entity as that before the collapse of the western portion) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. It seems obvious to me that this phrase is used to contrast the original Roman Empire with the Byzantine Empire or other states claiming to be successors to the Roman Empire. It is not an especially common phrase, and does not seem to have a more specific meaning in academic use, such as the empire of the Roman Republic, the Principate, or the Dominate. Thus "Roman Empire" is the best target. P Aculeius (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were recently created and I tagged several others for speedy deletion based on previous discussions that resulted in deletion, but these did not have previous discussions. Delete as redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (point 8 of WP:R#DELETE)/per WP:RFOREIGN. I also CSD tagged several other recently created redirects that had been deleted as the result of previous discussions, but these ones had not been explicitly discussed previously. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of them per nom and WP:RLOTE. Also @Hey man im josh I think you included ভাৰত by accident, that redirect targets to India. However, I'm not sure about Estados Unidos da América which is the Portuguese translation. We do have Estados Unidos which was kept at RfD previously as the Spanish language has an affinity with the U.S., being the second most spoken language there. We also have Estados Unidos de América which is the Spanish translation. I'm leaning towards delete since Portuguese doesn't have much of an affinity with the U.S. but just wanted to note this.
hmm... would i consider a single letter in a possessive article to be a significant enough difference that it changes a redirect from a language with strong affinity to one with no affinity beyond how much people want to bang jetstream sam? absolutely cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically avoided nominating any Spanish redirects, none of which were recent creations I believe, unlike the entries nominated, which were all recently created. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some there is AFFINITY for some non-English languages in the United States, meeting RFOREIGN Manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken. The U.S. has several non-English native dialects and languages. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Les États Unis d'Amérique" because Louisiana French is a real thing, and still used in the United States. The Louisiana Purchase transferred French-speaking territories from France to the United States. There are real ties to a dialect of French only used in the United States. Louisiana French is an U.S.-only dialect. There is some legal recognition of Louisiana French in Louisiana, with some areas even have French-language street signs unrelated to tourism, for the native population to use. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No comment on most of these, but I think 米国 should point to somewhere that explains why Japan chose "rice country" as the kanji for America way back in the day. I think this is something English speakers may want to search for once learning of it. Now, Demonyms for the United States doesn't mention it (in favor of the katakana アメリカ), but it probably should, as American (word) DOES mention it, though it doesn't explain it yet (and that page should likely also mention that アメリカ人 is also used alongside 米国人). Fieari (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the first 2: These are encoded format names, with spaces substituted with periods/dots/fullstops. It is an affectation of some methods for encoding spaces in URLs by some pieces of software -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Scene, mention or not; if the show itself demonstrably stylized it this way it becomes a plausible search term. Mention is not always required in the article, and this would be one such case. Remember: redirects are a search aid first and foremost. No comment on the others. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:CHEAP. These redirects are harmless, unambiguous (even without the "the" in the show's title, they still lead exactly where promised), and potentially helpful. I can't really see why just "Ren & Stimpy Show" as opposed to "The Ren & Stimpy Show" is impractical—it's just another plausible way to quote the show's title (for instance, Ren & Stimpy Show is a redirect to the page about the show). Regards, SONIC67816:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neither of these two are typos. One uses "The" the other strips "The" from the namestring; that seems like a good use for redirects to me. Ren & Stimpy Show is a bluelink; and no other topic uses the "The"-less name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as redirects left from moves, and there for about 6 months, which is long enough that it's probably reasonable to keep, even if otherwise unneeded. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a south indian cutty boy (that's the formal term, right?), apparently mostly used to cut coconuts. seemingly probably notable on its own, but it's not mentioned in the article, and doesn't even seem to be a type of machete cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of people with surname Johnson#Sports. The Olympian in question may have had that surname, but he's not the only player with it. There are multiple notable soccer players with that surname, and having that redirect target its current target can block people from accessing other articles (not to mention WP:ASTONISHing them). Regards, SONIC67822:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clear from the context why this was created. It was a bad idea though, and there's no reason why it would be at all useful in any other context. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while likely a plausible r from alternative scientific name or something, it's unmentioned, and results only gave me a brand of adult juices (i think it's booze, at least) and a list of words that rhyme with "matpat" cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The fact that it appears in the Endangered English Dictionary is a bad omen. OED has an entry, though the definition is under a paywall. The etymology section says "The only known use of the noun calicrat is in the late 1500s." So, no, I don't think it is a scientific name or anything of that sort. WP:RDELETE's obscure synonym clause appears here. Catalk to me!23:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Exactly one documented actual usage I could find ever, and it's from 1596. Oxford seems to concur with this. So we're talking about one line from one poem of no note written by one passably notable poet in the 1590s. The only context it's ever been used in outside of that as best I can tell (about 10 minutes' worth of searching) is Grambs 1994 and a select few obscure websites piggybacking off of Grambs 1994 by defining it as well. There's zero reason to think anyone would be stymied by this word's meaning and search it on Wikipedia. We wouldn't even include this on Wiktionary, which is extremely generous with arcahic words, because it fails inclusion criteria. WP:CHEAP, sure, but this is so implausible as to be literally worthless. (Also, this has nothing to do with scientific naming; this was over 100 years before Linnaeus was born.) TheTechnician27(Talk page)23:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know a lot of obscure English terms thanks to Wiktionary, and if it took me a massive amount of digging on the internet just to get a hint as to what it means then it's too obscure for Wiktionary - let alone something as notability-driven as ENWP Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP per Neodop. It is conceivable that someone finds it an old book and understandably looks it up in the encyclopedia to see what this felid species they haven't heard of if. And they will bc helped. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 12:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beyond obscure, and that's being generous. I'm dubious that this would even survive even Wiktionary's permissive standards, given the paucity of attestation. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The obvious reason here is if it is another name for Ant then this redirect will help that person who is looking for it. Edit: Actually delete, it will hardly come up for it to be searched regardless and doesn't link to anything noteworthy aside from user pages.This0k (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's so uncommonly used as to hardly be a word. Even if it was somewhat rare I'd normally say keep it, but last used in 1596 in a single poem? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of retargeting this redirect to Leet#n00b, but i think it's best to ask for consensus first before doing so. You have two choices: either keep this redirect as it is now, or retarget it to Leet#n00b as i wanted. This redirect should not be deleted. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't tell me what to do, i vote to retarget to my talk page!!
Keep this is not a related term, it is the same term. I don't se why synonyms should be pointed elsewhere. And this stylization already appears in the target article. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, where it's used as a specific example with specific content about the alternate spelling, at which point, someone can always follow the link to the more general topic if so inclined. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination on behalf of Phoebe, who blanked the page with the edit summary, take out redirect, this is incorrect. M&C was an independent publisher that went out of business in 2022. Some of their titles (the Synthesis content) went to SpringerNature. They copublished with IOP on some titles, but not all of themCremastra ‹ u — c › 21:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Atypon. Considering they are under Ig Publishing I am genuinely confused as to why it was under IOP publishing in the first place. Would @Phoebe agree? The issue is that it isn't mentioned oce there but it seems Morgan and claypool are from Ig Publishing. Edit: Their website was actually partnered with Atypon as seen here, so maybe Atypon is a better redirect than Ig publishing.
Keep, phonetic misspelling; "fountain" is pronounced fowntĭn (faʊntɪn) to rhyme with tin, so this is very plausible for an ESL speaker. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing the point of those redirects but redirecting to Wiktionary seems unlikely to be helpful. It seems like they should both link to the articles but maybe I'm missing the point here? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal The point of the redirects? The terms are more used academically in journals or activist writing in English, and are the literal translations of the terms French Wikipedia uses in the mainspace titles, probably because of WP:NOUN policies plus the terms being more formal in French. Cisidentity, specifically, seems to be a protologism. I guess people redirect them to Wiktionary because the terms are not mentioned in the main articles. Though recently some egregious groups started using them to mean "cisid" and "transid". LIrala (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should be mentioned in the main articles then? I'm not sure to what extent French terminology should guide us but if redirecting to Wiktionary makes more sense for reasons that I'm not getting then that's fine. I do think that both should do the same thing though. It's confusing if parallel terms are treated differently. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that both should link to the same place and that should be Transgender pregnancy. The section in Male pregnancy deals with two largely theoretical matters before very briefly getting on to things that actually exist in the real world. It doesn't even link to Transgender pregnancy, which is the most likely topic that the reader is actually looking for. Transgender pregnancy is much more likely to give the reader what they want and expect. I guess the other target might be acceptable if that section was substantially improved and included a link to Transgender pregnancy but, as it stands, the first redirect sends readers off to a poorly written section that doesn't give them what they are most likely looking for. This is likely to confuse and frustrate them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per forred, redirects from other languages (regardless of what their funny scribbles look like) are fine... but only if the target has any strong affinity with said language. as an example of the type of redirect that should be deleted, meowth has a different name in portuguese (miau... which is literally just "meow"), but that doesn't mean an article on something from a japanese franchise should have this redirect. there's also the issue of brazil not being real, i guess
Keep - The Japanese Wikipedia page has the mention we need, which seems inclusion-worthy. The sources just need to be sorted out. Here's the first mention of Gakken Plus: 2022年、学研教育みらいを存続会社として学研プラス（旧学研マーケティング、学研教育出版、学研パブリッシング）、学研メディカル秀潤社、学研出版サービスを合併し総合出版社の株式会社Gakkenが発足。 (Google Translate: In 2022, Gakken Plus (formerly Gakken Marketing, Gakken Educational Publishing, Gakken Publishing), Gakken Medical Shujunsha, and Gakken Publishing Services merged with Gakken Educational Mirai as the surviving company to form the comprehensive publisher Gakken Inc.) My !vote for keep is based partially on the spirit (not the letter, I know) of WP:NEXIST, and also because it seems with this merger that Gakken Plus and Gakken are now basically synonymous, which should get rid of any WP:ASTONISH problems until such time as the information and sources from the Japanese wiki can be included here. Fieari (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should note while i'm at it that i'll create lumbriciform after this discussion is closed and if it's not closed as delete (for any reason not related to its plausibility as a tpyo) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Lumbriciform" is a descriptor for a general shape (which is, well, worm-shaped) rather than a scientific classification, so targeting it to "worm" makes more sense here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoteDYKO-TV also exists as a redirect that is also unmentioned at its own target; it seems to be related, as it appears to be the same Philippine callsign of a differing use -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep All of the incoming links appear to be using "Recent" in its geological definition (i.e., as a synonym for Holocene). I do think there is a point to be made about the geological definition not being the "primary topic," so to speak. But I'm hesitant to delete since the "primary" definition isn't getting wikilinked at the moment. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to be used for convenience in a narrow set of articles. Thsi redirect is unlikely to cause the confusion (as we are unlikely to have an article about the word itself, which would be the primary meaning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete, although I'm not unsympathetic to the cleanup that would require. Maybe someone could use AWB or a bot to automate the process, but I don't know if that's more trouble than it's worth. This seems to be used in a bunch of taxoboxes in a technical sense, but far more often, it's done better, with "Recent" as a piped link to Holocene instead of relying on the redirect (see e.g. Giraffe). I don't think it's appropriate to carve out a redirect for a technical sense of an everyday word to use like this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
soft redirect to wikt:recent, where the holocene period is ironically not directly mentioned. would it be per nom?
Keep Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Readers do not want to get sent to a dictionary entry about the vague concept of newness. If a reader is searching the term "recent", they are looking for an encyclopedic entry on geology. Catalk to me!03:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If a reader is searching the term "recent", they are looking for an encyclopedic entry on geology." That seems like a stretch to me. The only way that would make sense was if the person that went to this redirect got there from a forum post about geology. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that the reader is looking for the use of "recent" in other fields, I would also support an unorthodox hatnote to the wiktionary entry. Catalk to me!14:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other encyclopedic topic could the term "recent" refer to?. Maybe recency effect, recency bias, or recentism. We shouldn't be guessing, and even a dab page for something this vague is iffy. But the status quo isn't there for readers; it's a technical redirect used poorly in some taxoboxes, and it shouldn't remain like that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the grounds that Presidentman and Викидим point out. Since it's unlikely there will ever be much call for an encyclopedic article about the word "recent" itself (as Wikipedia isn't a dictionary), we don't seem to be primed to have competition for this target. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NH, keep ND as I don't see any strong ties between NH and Spanish languages. The area now in NH was not part of the Spanish colonization of the Americas so far as I can see, and only around 3% of the people in these states speak Spanish according to NH. However, ND was part of the Spanish colonization, and so has a tie to Spanish language. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither meets WP:RLANG in my opinion. I'm unconviced by the mere fact that many people in the U.S. speak Spanish to justify keeping here. (Many people in the U.S. also speak French, for example, but neither Nouveau Hampshire nor Dakota du Nord exist). In regards to North Dakota's supposed affinity to Spanish, that's spurious at best. There was never a place known as "Dakota del Norte" under Spanish rule, which in this case would have been limited to the brief era of Spanish Louisiana. (Assuming you count claiming Indigenous land as "ruling" it). No sustained European settlement occurred in the region until well after the U.S. acquired the territory. Even then, Dakota Territory was one entity until 1889. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and creator pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect targeted the article which it currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Raad-1. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion isn't really getting any comments, I might as well throw my two cents in and say weak delete. Raad already exists as a disambiguation and there really isn't any suitable target for the exact title. Alternatively, retarget to Raad since that's the actual disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK. --Tavix(talk)22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an incorrect term for multiple things, and thus not really a good disambiguation and no reason to point to one over the others. Hopefully a redlink will tell the user that they have their term wrong and make them use the correct name for whatever it is they are looking for. * Pppery *it has begun...04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try, since there's only really been one relist's worth of discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk14:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can confirm this project exists, or at least existed, but there seem to be no non-primary sources about it (at least in English) meaning it is not eligible for an article. The target destination provides no information about the subject, and is unable to do so without a secondary source. However, it would be interesting and useful information to put in the target article, as to be perfectly honest, I'd love to see a section about oppositional efforts to Han unification in the project. But... without secondary commentary, we can't really add it. The page history, stub as it was, does has useful content if a secondary source could be found, and I'm loathe to delete it as an eternal optimist. All in all though, deletion is pretty permanent-- I'd rather leave it as a BLAR, simply hoping that a secondary source could be found somewhere, perhaps on the Japanese side of the web (my Japanese is only intermediate, I don't think I'm good enough to find it). The problem with leaving it as a redirect though, is that... again, we have no information on the subject. I wish there was some way to preserve the history without maintaining the redirect. A frustrating situation. Fieari (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects all have the same misspelling of "soldier," which was discussed in a previous RfD from last week. As its rationale says, "solider" is also the comparative form of "solid" and can also be a misspelling of at least several other words. Delete these unless someone can provide a justification or suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC67805:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment however, this is not a bare "solider", in the context of these redirects, there are no other topics that could be referred to by the entire redirect, other that as a mispelling typo by adjacent character transposition of "soldier", unlike a bare "solider" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory you are right, but in many years of patrolling solider on this site I have noticed a very clear pattern of "super solder" being a very common typo for "super soldier" - something to do with comics I think. ϢereSpielChequers05:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but stereo solider I have been patrolling the word "solider" on Wikipedia for many years, and in so doing created at least one of the above redirects by moving an article with that typo in its name. Solider does indeed have a genuine meaning, but most new occurrences on Wikipedia are typos of soldier and all of these redirects are in my view much more likely to come up as typos of soldier than because someone actually searches for say "confederate solider" because of something to do with confederates and solidity. So while I don't dispute the previous RFD, not everyone typing solider is making a typo and we shouldn't default just because the majority are probably wrong, in the above cases a correct use of solider would itself actually be odd. So we should keep these redirects other perhaps than "stereo Solider" which might as well be an alien language for me. ϢereSpielChequers05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bare solider shouldn't reidrect to soldier, but all these are cases where "solider" is plainly a common typo for "soldier". In what context would someone be intentionally trying to find out how to make a child or Confederate more solid? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Cowboy" or "Luttrell" at the target article. Not a helpful redirect if we have no content on this supposed individual wrestler at the target article for the NWA. Utopes(talk / cont)21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is technically the wrong spelling or not (which would take some digging to ascertain) is irrelevant given that this appears to be the most frequently-used spelling or at least close to it (take the NYT for one). I would be surprised to find that most peri-notable people with scattered mentions across Wikipedia have redirects in their name anyway, so I don't understand your logic. Moreover, there are way more as-yet uncreated redirects that would be kept at RfD than currently existent redirects. J947 ‡ edits21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear if this is a good target for this title. For the last two years, it had redirected to turbocharger until a recent edit. Turbo does seem like it could be a common word for something "fast". Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the malplaced issue. But want to determine if it should be targeted to turbocharger as a primary redirect first. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I say speedy because at the moment, there are a lot of incoming links that are going to the dab page, presumably intended for turbocharger. Return to the status quo and then the primary topic can be revisited, either via RM (if there is no primary topic or something "Turbo (bar)" at the dab is primary) or RfD if something else at the dab warrants a primary redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget back to turbocharger as WP:PTOPIC. No preference for speedy or not speedy action on this. If I was to !vote on this in an RM context, I would not !vote to move it away from turbocharger, again, as this looks like a clear primary topic issue. A hatnote should be enough to get people to the DAB. Fieari (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crossnamespace redirect from (article) to project page. It appears that the word "hatnote" was invented specifically for Wikipedia, there are no other stuff with that word and the internet underlined that word as a misspelling. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per... well... nom. Indeed the word "hatnote" was invented specifically for Wikipedia and there are no other stuff with that word. Since I find it likely that new editors will wonder what the uses of them are, there isn't an encyclopedic target we have for this, and this redirect is unambiguous, I'm sure it's fine. mwwvconverse∫edits16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reader will never encounter the word hatnote normally, they will just see hatnotes, without knowing what Wikipedia calls the internally. Just as any part of the internals of Wikipedia are not usually known by the readership, nor need to be known by the readership. If they wantt to find out, then they will probably be part of the contributor editorship, which is not what redirects in articlespace are for. WP:HATNOTE already exists for us, the editorship. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, I do feel pageviews should be taken into account here, given that it's averaging around 2 per day. Whether it's bored experienced editors, the readers/newbies being curious, or from the multiple pages it's linked to is beyond me, but the redirect is clearly seeing some use (would also like to note that this is linked in Hat (disambiguation), which has had 206 views in the past 30 days). I must also note that this XNR has been around since 2008. mwwvconverse∫edits22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Listen to Wikipedia with hatnote is unironically the best solution here in my opinion. Listen to Wikipedia is not at all an obscure article, receiving 500 pageviews a month, so the reader looking for that with this search term is plausible. An injoke-y hatnote about hatnotes is more acceptable when, as previously identified, LtW is firmly inside the wikirealm. Second choice disambiguate. And bundle in Hat note and Hatnotes on the relist, please. J947 ‡ edits00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested target no longer mentions it, as I've removed it as unsourced (not just unsourced, but none of the sources actually refer to it with this name). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:hatnote. Reader-focused target most related to what previous discussions considered the primary use. This has been brought to discussion several times now and a salty soft-redirect may also be warranted as a cost-saving measure. Editors should know to use namespaces (like WP:, HELP:, etc.) for linking or searches. Second preference is retargeting to Listen to Wikipedia per above and previous talks. ― Synpath02:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My history will show I usually strongly dislike WP:XNRs, but this one really is completely unambiguously not associated with anything but us, and so our internal pages actually provide the same kind of information that someone would be looking for in mainspace in this case. So I think this is a valid exception to the general rule. Fieari (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are billions of possible letter transpositions of article titles (trillions if you include other redirects). What makes this one so special? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many mainspace redirects that link to citation templates created by the same user. He has created many of them and I'm not in the mood for bundling so I might as well nominate one and see how that plays out. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK. --Tavix(talk)22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The major CS1|2 templates should be frictionless reaching the documentation, anything we can to help editors figure out how to find and use these tempalates overrides any minor guideline technicality. Nobody has presented a practical reason why this redirect would be a hindrance, but there are strong arguments why it's useful to keep. Also I'm concerned by the sheer volume of RfDs by an infinity banned sock, which are then followed up by a single IP editor voting/arguing in support of the nom. -- GreenC16:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GreenC. The Cite web RfD was once again closed as "no consensus" "no consensus to delete". I think it's practical to have these as they could improve sourcing without much downside. It's also a hassle to type in "Template:" each time, and I can never remember if the shortcut is "tm:", "tp:" or "tl:". (But I think "tl:" might be TuvalanTagalog Wikipedia, as I've made that mistake several times before). BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not something any reader would want. Thus it should not exist in article-space. Article-space is WP:NOT a how-to guide to write articles on Wikipedia. The template page is most definitely a how-to guide to using the template, as it contains documentation . -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers are current or future editors, and even if they're not, seeing a search suggestion for "Cite (anything)" is not likely to discombobulate them. And even if they accidentally click on it there's always the back button. AV media is itself just a redirect to Audiovisual, and "Cite AV media" is not even a search suggestion in that case. You can even type "cite " (with a space) without any CNRs showing up. (Just to emphasise GreenC's point that it doesn't appear to be a hindrance.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked CFA about that, and they wrote I closed it as "no consensus to delete", which is not the same as a general "no consensus" close. I was originally going to close as keep, but I felt that this was a better representation of the arguments presented, pointing to the fact that deletion — what the nominator was looking for — was very unlikely to happen (see WP:SNOW). Common practice is generally to delete non-Wikipedia-specific cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, so I weighted the IAR keep votes saying that they find it personally useful slightly less than I might've normally. Relisting may well have balanced out the numbers, but a consensus to delete was clearly not going to emerge so there was no point in keeping it open. I wasn't saying there was no consensus at all in the discussion, just that consensus for deletion was unlikely to happen. Quoted User:CFA - BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not a necessary (or even widely-used) xnr, templates generally aren't something readers will want to see. if they want to get into editing and templates, they can learn about namespaces when they get there cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I'd encourage creation of more without discussion, but is useful, not harmful, and has been around more than a year. All the best: RichFarmbrough08:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: We could change the target to just Earl Grey tea. I'm finding a smattering of recipes and travel guide references to this drink that confirm that it exists and uses Earl Grey as a primary ingredient. It's a plausible search term that doesn't warrant an article. It could conceivably receive a mention in the Earl Grey tea article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Term has not yet received mention at the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring the use of "trump" as a verb (ie "team fortress 2 trumps its sequel"), do those hits refer specifically to his 2rd presidency? google is being mean again, and only giving me social media :c cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and of course, the literal second i send that, i remember that i can tweak my searches. apparently "trump: the sequel?" is a... tv show? series? episode? podcast? i really can't make heads or tails of it or what the preferred target would be (maybe panorama? not entirely sure if it's the right one, and it's not mentioned there...), but i know it's not our resident carrot's own article cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick google news search yields a number of reliable sources referencing Trump's second presidency as a sequel: [18][19][20]. Even the not-so reliable ones (opinion/paid pieces) [21] makes a case for this being a plausible search term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolatileAnomaly (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, let's have a look at the citations in order, even though i'm absolutely no expert on burgerland political systems
doesn't directly refer to his second presidency as a sequel. rather, it seems to be about his wacky hijinks in the not burning the world department
i guess "the trump sequel" is close enough
evidently refers to it as a sequel as a joke, but it's probably good enough
seems to refer to everything about the presidency and how people are handling it, except what the annoying orange will actually do. also evidently refers to those effects as a sequel as a joke, but it probably works
"hollywood's trump resistance: the sequel" is not the same as "trump: the sequel"
oh, it's an episode of a tv program. hate that that's how i finally pieced it together, but it's about that episode, and not necessarily the presidency
Keep as editor who created it, Trump's next presidency being a sequel is pretty plausible, and if The Guardian, a UK newspaper of record is referring to it as so. there's going to be some note behind it. as for the anon who mentioned "mommy milkers", I cannot believe that's not been used to direct to Abigail Shapiro. BarntToust15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is not an alternative subtitle of Extinction, as this redirect implies, but rather an entirely different game in this series. I'm choosing to vote Delete unless we have better info on Evolution Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The T,FTFY redirect page was not tagged for RfD. Done now, and this nomination has to be listed for at least 7 days. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay oops, i thought i sent it before. i found nothing noteworthy, seeing as results are mostly flooded with unnotable musicians and... an airport? really, i'm surprised i didn't get a lot of results about the actual slang, but then again, most people use "kthx"
refined searches mostly gave me dictionaries, which i don't think would work for this stuff
Keep unless incoming link is first updated. As it stands, it's a bit Easter-eggy. Might be better to modify the text to Maria-Hilf ([[Mary, Help of Christians]]) or just use the English term. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused, implausible typo. We might tolerate something like this with regard to mainspace (though I note that whomst is a redlink, and whom's target of Who (pronoun) has no mention of a "whomst"). A template redirect, however, exists for the sole purpose of use in transclusion. The target of this is a cleanup template, and an in-article call to that template, should read sensibly to any editor (or wikisource-curous reader) who encounters it. "Whomst" isn't a word in Modern English, but an obsolete form that was uncommonly used into the Early Modern period. No corresponding Template:Amongst whomst exists, and tacking on "?" doesn't somehow make this useful (otherwise we might as well have Template:Amongst whomst?? and Template:Amongst whomst???). wikt:whomst suggests (without any sources) that "whomst" is sometimes still employed for humorous effect, but WP is not a comedy site and more importantly our maintenance templates and their names don't serve a humor purpose (or an Elizabethan roleplay purpose). PS: Template:Amongst whom is fine, since amongst is still in frequent usage in the language. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC); revised 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was summoned here by a missive on mine talk-page; I would be hard-pressed to come up with any aspect of this that is important. Have we nothing more pressing, that this task shouldst be thine? Must we form a delineation of age beyond with none can use words? Surely Latin is older still, thereby whence "videlicet", "et alia" and "{{sic}} erat scriptum"? jp×g🗯️13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have anything to do with "pressingness". We should not keep templates that don't serve a practical purpose, as they are a systemic maintenance burden. Has nothing, either, to do with age of the term, but rather with lack of documented currency in Modern English; videlicet/viz., et alia/et al., and sic are (like Greek ergo which is even older) still used daily in the language, albeit largely in academic, legal, or other specialist literature. Whomst is not. We do not need a Template:Thou, Template:Thee, Template:Thy, and Template:Thine to go along with or redirect to Template:You, for the same reason Template:Amongst whomst? is nominated for deletion here. PS: You're kind of defeating your own argument by writing "shouldst be thine", etc. No one is going to take seriously that Elizabethan-era English norms have implications for our template redirect needs. The fact that any well-read native speaker can probably still parse it doesn't mean we need templates that use it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create something that you, personally, "take seriously" -- it is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. Is there a reason why writing an encyclopedia necessitates the active removal of template redirects that you dislike? jp×g🗯️06:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with what I "like". There are hundreds (at least) of redirects I don't like, but I would not nominate them for deletion because they don't qualify. This one does, since it is potentially confusing and to many will be nonsensical, it is a novel obscurity (though not technically a neologism, in resurrecting a dead word from the past), and it doesn't serve an editorially useful function (does not represent a common typo, or otherwise aid with linking attempts), and is not "a closely related word form" (it is not attested in any major dictionaries). We also do not keep non-English redirects (Russian, French, etc.) unless we have a technical need for them, and this qualifies as another language (Middle to Early Modern English). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 13:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously "use ... as a point-and-laugh vehicle" != "serious use". As noted in the nomination statement, use for humorous effect has been cited already, but is not a keep rationale because of the nature of this site and especially of our cleanup/dispute templates. And use in jokey Internet meme is no connected to use in the sort of language that pertains to writing and maintaining an encyclopedia, so would not be relevant anyway. E.g., we have no use for Template:Source been ghosted or Template:Because facts redirects to Template:Citation needed, nor a Template:Yeet redirect for Template:db. WP isn't written in, or maintained internally by means of, Internet meme slang. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read:
""Whomst" does still see a surprising amount of serious uses, although I just as equally wouldn't be opposed to a deletion as most of the time people just use that word as a point-and-laugh vehicle"
It is not. Proof: Use the OneLook dictionary search aggregator and search for "whomst" there [24]. You find that not one major English-language dictionary (that is online-accessible) includes this word, only Wikitionary does (without any sourcing), and we cannot rely on it even if it did have sourcing, per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR. Contrast that with the OneLook results for "whom" [25], which turns up in every dictionary you've probably ever heard of and many you won't have. But feel free to quote from any 20th-century or later offline dictionary you can find that does include this word but does not indicate obsolete or archaic. I'll wait. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't using archaic language. It isn't using Chaucer's English though, so it is perfectly readable. It is English and not Anglish. It is using "amongst" after all, and that is also archaic. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not use this "Whatever idea I have in my head must be the truth" approach to writing mainspace content. "Amongst" is not archaic at all, but used daily by innumerable English speakers, especially in the UK. This is demonstrable in just a few moments of research (though anyone familiar with more than one dialect of English would already know of its usage). Using the same dictionary search aggregator [26], you find that amongst is not listed as "archaic" or "obsolete" in any of them, though many note that it is "chiefly British" and some also that it is considered more formal/academic/literary. Next, Chaucer is still quite readable; my school had us go through much of The Canterbury Tales in 8th grade, simply with a glossary sheet of entirely obsolete words like siker. So, I'm really not sure what sort of point you're trying to make here, and I return to mine: WP does not need or keep template redirects written in Middle English to Early Modern English obscurities, because they serve no practical purpose. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are disingenuously using "keep" as a verb here, which implies some sort of continued action is necessary for this to continue to exist. This is false. The exact opposite is true -- it requires absolutely no effort from anybody. The thing you are proposing is that we perform a bunch of actions to make it go away. Can you explain the "practical purpose" of this? jp×g🗯️17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indistinguishable from one, and the main thrust of the nomination is that these serve no encyclopedia-building or -improving purpose, so we have no need of them. This is not CreateTemplateRedirectsForEveryImaginableLinguisticVariationPedia (even if you assert that "this is not CatchUpWithTheJokeyMemesOfTheDayPedia" doesn't apply). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are having fun joking around, but I wish you would at least try to take this seriously for a minute.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia. It is not a roleplaying website for pretending we work for the government of East Germany.
Memorable shortcuts for commonly-used templates serve an extremely obvious purpose: they make the process of editing easier and more tolerable.
This is straightforwardly and directly conducive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. I am fine with jokes and being silly a bit here and there, but I would appreciate if you tried to keep in mind the actual purpose of the project. jp×g🗯️06:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. 🙄 I'm not going to engage further in this silly projection game, in which JPxG's redirects are perceived as jokey and not serving a serious purpose by most arrivals here, so he uses the school-yard "No I'm not! You are!" tactic of calling the redirect's critics jokey and non-serious. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not interested in a real conversation, that's fine, but please understand that using bureaucracy to police people's use of words you find dumb is deeply frivolous and unserious. The amount of time wasted by a dumb template redirect existing is approximately zero, whereas the amount of time wasted by hauling people out to a dumb RfD nomination is likely multiple hours. jp×g🗯️17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That response doesn't make any sense. How many "replies" there are, by whom, is irrelevant; the proof is in the reliable sourcing not which or how many persons referred to the reliable sourcing as part of the discussion. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless, unambiguous target, WP:CHEAP applies despite nominator's unsubstantiated claim that redirects somehow increase maintenence burden. Even if it can be used as a joke, WP:Don't be the Fun Police. This isn't mainspace, we're allowed to be a little less serious behind the scenes sometimes. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's harmful because it can be confusing to editors. CHEAP is never a valid reason to keep a redirect; it's just there to counter any claims about redirects being a burden to system resources, which isn't being claimed here, so this is a straw man. And we're not talking about jokey essays for fun, we're talking about templates that can be transcluded in article space. If you want it so badly, keep it in user space, not template. Do you have any actual substantive reason for keeping this other than "oh no won't somebody please think of the poor redirects?" and "it's just for fun lol why do you have to be such sticks in the mud?" 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do routinely delete jokey redirects; various policy and guideline pages have had many of them and they do not survive. We tolerate them for essays sometimes, when they are referential of content in the essay. But here, the actual templates these redirs resolve to are intended for mainspace use, so we absolutely should be "fun police", because goof-off stuff in mainspace isn't appropriate. If you create a {{crapola}} or {{pants on fire!}} redir to {{failed verification}} you can expect it to get RfD-nuked. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it confusing editors, when it is using the word properly. That would have you delete all the ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they definitely have in-Wikipedia jargon as part of their formation. Or any of the templates with short names, instead of sentence long names, as they are too short to elucidate their function. Wouldn't you need to add "footer navbox" to stop confusing editors in that the footer navbox templates are not infoboxes? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentum ad absurdum. No, User:35...'s argument does not amount to deleting our ALLCAPS shortcuts, since they serve an important and unmistakable purpose for the entire editing community and are part of a well-established shortcut system. However, if someone created "WP:FLUG#NFPL33P" and "WP:CHICKENNUGGETS" shortcuts to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we would delete them since they would not be sensible to other editors and would not serve a purpose for anyone but their creator. Same with these templates. There is no evidence that "whomst" survives in Modern English usage except for their and little known and likely short-lived resurrection for an Internet joke meme, which is not pertinent to the templates these redirects go to. If I create a joke meme that uses the Chaucerian-era fynissched, and people pass that meme around on social media, that does not magically mean that WP needs a {{fynissched}} redirect to {{done}}. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to respectfully but vehemently disagree that "whomst" and "amongst" are entirely unheard of in modern English. They are known, used, and understood in Modern English as creating an old-timey old-fashioned historical or overly formal feel that is widely understood and used as such, outside of memes and jokes, even if memes and jokes also use such. If you said these words to any random adult on the street, they would understand both the meaning and the context-flavor. Contrarily, the word fynissched is not widely known, used, or understood, and if you showed it to a given random adult English speaker they would be unlikely to understand it unless they had specialized knowledge (if they heard it spoken they might understand it as a heavily accented "finished", but written? No way). Heck, I personally have used "amongst" unironically as part of normal daily speech without necessarily intending an old timey feel sometimes (intending a more formal, academic, or sinister flavor instead). Fieari (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasoning for this appears to be "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that that particular class in Java seems to accept any integer for the date. I tested "April 366" which showed up as March 31 of the next year. The internet does say that there is a reference to "April 31" in the The Long Walk by Stephen King, but it is purposely supposed to be a fictional date, even within that universe. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (note: not policy), and this is a discussion page (the D in AfD stands for deletion while the D from RfD means discussion).
Filling the gaps is exactly why many redirects exist, and other stuff existing is the main reason why many redirects should be kept. And for example, different from AfD, WP:CHEAP, WP:USEFUL (see also WP:RFD#KEEP), and HARMLESS are valid arguments to use in RfD, and they are used frequently, including this current page. Web-julio (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfDs are deletion discussions, because this is where the deletion of redirects is discussed. That "deletion" is not in the title of the venue is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is the existence of outcomes other than "keep" and "delete" (retarget, disambiguate, etc.) enough to disagree with that? rfd is a discussion venue, and deletion is one of the possible results cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there's Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, which distinguishes AfD and RfD. This is a discussion that proposes a deletion, so technically is a deletion discussion, but not every RfD is a deletion discussion. Well, neither some AfDs, but why would someone AfD proposing to merge or rename if there are specific tools for that? The alternative is redirect in an AfD, but even there some see this as a form of deletion.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters that WP:ATA is "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". The aim of the essay is to list off ways of "contributing" to a given discussion that may instead just hinder the discussion, such as WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, or, indeed, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As the opener to the essay itself states, While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the target mentions Excel, but doesn't get into the use of these nonstandard dates in formulas (it only mentions the weird 1900 problem). In Excel and programs like it, if you add one day to the last day of a month, it returns the first day of the following month. It doesn't recognize April 31 as a valid date if you write it in a cell directly, but April 30 + 1 = May 1. I'm not sure if that could fit into content in the article, or if it's more prominent than other uses that have been suggested here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't realistically assume anyone, even the most naïve person, not knowing what the missing word is and searching to find out more of this item they had to self-censor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"barotrauma" refers to damage caused by air pressure differences. while pretty unique to bats since their lungs are held together with thoughts and prayers, it's not exclusive to them. granted, getting sent to the shadow realm due to barotrauma from the low-pressure areas just behind the blades of wind turbines is a little more closely associated with bats, but it's not what the redirect's wording necessarily implies cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the intersection of the two topics is unique to bats - other animals that it's thought are impacted by wind farms are harmed by impact damage flying into them, not pressure damage from being near them. This is covered in detail at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬16:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fado is indirectly mentioned in the passage Tetra remains in the castle while Link and the King journey to the two sages who provided the Master Sword's power. They discover Ganon's forces murdered them both (which includes Fado). Maybe a mention could be added but I am doubtful. Catalk to me!08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Mention has not been added to the target. Also, thoughts on the pre-BLAR page history in case of preference to delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both per WP:SOFTSP, which reserves this for words that would be commonly wikified, which is hard to see happening for this, but also because Wiktionary redirects are generally harmful. Ngrams finds zero occurrences of this in all of its corpora. It's hard to imagine anyone seriously using this as a search term. And for the record, even a keep would be preferable to the Wikt redirect, since that would at least lead to encyclopedic content about comfort. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attestation with meaning is basically the definition of a word according to modern understanding of the subject (see: Linguistic description) and we don't really need a reliable source just to say a word exists. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's already tagged as a redirect from antonym, and as a colloquial term. It's fine. We target antonyms all the time, as Shhh pointed out above. If people really want to, I don't strenuously object to sending this to wiktionary, but that shouldn't be necessary. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target, but is a term used in a least one book (Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account). However, Google results are all associated with a Christian alternative to Halloween, and the only use of the term on enwiki is in a reference at Halloween. Not sure what's best here, but the status quo is likely astonishing to at least some searchers. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - We have an attested, cited use of the term in a book for this target. I definitely have heard of the renaming of Halloween in churches, that seems very widespread. The song linked by LIrala above is a good match as well. I think this is worthy of a disambiguation page with at least these three targets. Fieari (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
was about to retarget to hawaiian pizza, but i realized that there are at least two other things that can be considered "hawaiian style". maybe even more! also see the history. it's not important to this discussion, but it is really funny cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to pizza, although redirecting to Hawaiian pizza is worth a thought (the only difference is the pineapple, which I don't think is considered Canadian as much as a universal ingredient). It's lucky that at least two fruits, pineapples and tomatoes, go well on pizzas (are any other fruits commonly used as a pizza topping?). As for your alternates, don't try it on a surfboard. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page It is plausible to me that someone could search for "Hawaiian style", and legitimately be searching for either Hawaiian Pizza or Aloha Shirt. I'm not sure what the other things cogsan is referring to as other possible target articles, but the benefit of a disambiguation page is that they could be added if appropriate. FlipandFlopped ツ21:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a lot of things related to its culture, like cuisine (excluding the pizza, as it ironically has nothing to do with hawaii), media, music, funny shirts, and most importantly(?), the coincidentally named canned pineapple brand that a type of pizza is named after. then again, "style" is a little too subjective for my tastes (could refer to fashion, art styles, how they season their meat...), so i'm actually against a dab cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DABify - With, at minimum, a reference to Hawaiian pizza and Aloha shirt, with potential for further options. Amazingly, I can't currently find a direct mention of Hawaiian pizza in the pizza article, nor in the Pizza in the United States article, and I definitely think it should be at least in the latter of those. I just don't have the time to look up references at this moment... Fieari (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, my search-fu was weak, in an embarrassingly silly way. Hawaiian pizza exists, and it doesn't appear in the Pizza in the United States article because it originated in Canada, not Hawaii, and does in fact appear in the Pizza in Canada article. It probably still deserves a mention in the pizza article, as I personally feel it has enough notoriety for that, but it's less of a concern now. Fieari (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaiian pizza is regularly and commonly called Hawaiian style pizza., even though (as I was shocked to learn) it is Canadian in origin. Fieari (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think they should be mentioned at their targets- WP should not be fabricating abbreviations that are not in use in reliable sources. If not mentioned at target, then these redirects are inappropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My usual approach is to decide on the validity of alternative names/abbreviations at Rfd, and if deleted, then remove mentions from the article based on that consensus, but I see how the opposite order could make sense. I have removed these abbreviations from the articles; their merit can be decided via WP:BRD. Unless they are restored, these redirects should be deleted until and if there is consensus for recreating them. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it exists in the template as a piped link to γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde. Shortening to GHBAL for the purposes of a compact template seems fair to me (though many other compounds that could use short-forms don't, but that's just inconsistent styling and not a real issue). I mentioned that stat as I made the assumption after reading your comment that for GHBAL to appear almost 200 times in Wikipedia meant that the acronym form of γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde was common and a redirect is justified. After checking I found it appeared mostly in template transclusions, I assume to save space.
The acronym/abbreviation is correct, it's more that I don't think we need to create redirects for any conceivable abbreviation that isn't already in common use as an abbreviation, like the related GABA or the unrelated NATO. As an example, I would regard GHBA as an equally valid and understandable abbreviation for γ-Hydroxybutaldehyde that doesn't clash with related compounds (γ-Hydroxybutyric acid is abbreviated as GHB). There is no standard abbreviation for the aldehyde and choosing one out of many is arbitrary. ― Synpath19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my vote. Delete 1, 2 and 3. Still on the fence on 4 because "choosing one out of many" will not be arbitrary here because of the large number of transclusions, and it is only a matter of time before someone realizes the piping and wonders why this is not a redirect. And we may have to go over the same explanations until it is salted. Jay 💬03:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This name isn't mentioned in the current revision of the target article. Page history shows that it used to mention Adimo when the Adimo article was moved to its current title on February 19, 2014. In order for this redirect to be helpful, Adimo must be mentioned somewhere in the target article again. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified on this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬07:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd say Keep second and Retarget first to LGBTQ symbols since I feel like nobody is gonna be searching up the unicode symbol and looking for the article on gay men or lesbian, and instead will likely be looking for info on the symbol itself. Gaismagorm(talk)11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to LGBTQ symbols: My first thought was to retarget them to achillean and sapphic, respectively, because they're technically more correct. My second thought, though, was that those two terms are comparatively obscure and most people searching using the symbols would, in fact, probably be looking for gay man and lesbian. My third thought was... how likely are those to be actually used as search terms? Probably not very. Finally, my fourth thought, upon reading Gaismagorm's comment above, was that, yeah, in the unlikely event that someone copy and pastes those symbols into the search bar, they are probably better served by the article about the symbols themselves, rather than what they represent. Gender symbol would also work because it basically contains the same content, but I think LGBTQ symbols is slightly preferable because it's somewhat more narrowly focused and would probably leave readers less confused. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original reliable, secondary sources surely exist for these names in the back issues of the original newspapers. I have not yet had a chance to expand the article.
(Procedural nomination on behalf of AriankntlMdewman6 (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)). I propose that the redirect Bandahara be deleted or replaced, as the current redirect to Bendahara is inappropriate. "Bandahara" refers to a specific geographical feature, Mount Bandahara in Indonesia, while the title of Bendahara in the context of traditional Malay government is generally no longer used in modern government structures. The two are entirely unrelated, and this redirect may confuse readers seeking information about the mountain.[reply]
I suggest deleting the redirect and allowing Bandahara to become an independent article about the mountain. Thank you for your attention. Ariankntl (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably oppose, alternative suggestion - does this re-direct fall under the Reasons for not deleting 2,3 and 6? Would the better alternative not be a disambiguation page? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting "Bandahara" to "Bendahara" is inappropriate because the term "Bandahara" is more relevant when associated with Mount Bandahara. A better solution would be to direct "Bandahara" to an article about the mountain. This ensures that the information provided is more accurate and meets the user's search expectations. Ariankntl (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that it is more relevant? I think in the grand scale of things very few people will go and look for either article. I generally would not care about this topic, but someone posted it on my talk page. I note that I created "Bandahara" in 2014, and the "Mount Bandahara" article was created this month - I think this probably points to how important these articles looking at the greater picture - I don't think the generic user is looking for either of these. I think my points under reasons for deleting still stand. However, a disambiguation page might be better for the user to point to the correct article. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pogrom" is not an established or a widely used term, looking at the coverage of this incident WP:RNEUTRAL. Retarget to the suggested article is also fine. — hako9 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, but I suggest adding a {{for}} hatnote (not a {{redirect}} hatnote, for language reasons) to that target. It is supposedly being used in prominent sources (and probably social media but I'm not on Twitter) to refer to the recent ethnic hooliganism, but I agree that it's inappropriate and insensitive to refer to this as a pogrom when actual state-sanctioned pogroms actually happened here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Redirects are navigation aids. With the target article saying that the President of Israel characterized the attack as a pogrom, that's sufficient to make it a reasonable search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the redirects is covered in WP:RPURPOSE. The President of Turkey characterized the president of Israel as a "genocidal murderer". Is that sufficient to make it a reasonable search term, and therefore, a redirect? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy doesn't apply. Per WP:BLP, it would be inappropriate to put into the biographical article on the President of Israel the personal attacks that some other world leader made (although it would be appropriate to say that he has been criticized). Likewise, we do not put into biographical articles all the insulting "nicknames" that Trump has given all his political opponents.
In the case of this redirect in question, the target article specifically has the term "pogrom" in the article, and there are no WP:BLP concerns.
It's somewhat bewildering that you missed the obvious point: the president of Israel is not a reliable source for such a statement. His irrelevant opinion can be attributed to him, but that's about it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS does not apply to redirects. The question about redirects is whether it's a plausible search term. The fact that the President of Israel called it a Pogrom, and it's in the article, makes it a plausible search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. What happened yesterday in Amsterdam was characterized by reliable sources as a pogrom. This is stated in the lede of the target. What happened in the Netherlands during the Holocaust was mass-murder of Jews, but not a pogrom or a sequence of pogroms. In fact, that article does not mention pogroms and never uses the word.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a fresh-faced disambiguator, I came across an ambiguous link to a place in modern Belarus. I identified it.
The very next problem was identical. I solved that too.
The third one was the same, and I solved it as well.
At that point, I took a break, because for some reason I was unable to focus properly and was swearing uncontrollably. One of those three places, obliterated in the early 1940s, is commemorated by an engraved stone in the ground. The other two are not.
Calling the recent incident in Amsterdam a "pogrom" is an insult to all those who were victims of actual pogroms. FWIW, I have no Jewish heritage. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep - What happened in Amsterdam was horrific and it needs to be reflected as such. It has been described as a pogram and that's because it was one. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try to say this as charitably as possible, but as someone whose relatives have had to flee actual pogroms during WW2, I feel I do need to say it:
I find this comparison, made by heads of state or politicians and now defended by you, incredibly insensitive, deeply upsetting, and bordering, itself, on antisemitism, given how profoundly, by association, it minimizes the horrors of anti-Jewish pogroms and relativizes the atrocities of those that carried out pogroms. Especially now that it's become increasingly apparent the Israeli fans engaged in behavior that could itself, at best, be described as monstrous bigotry and cheers for ethnic cleansing.
Either way, while I wanted to share how offensive I think this comparison actually is, I'm aware my feelings on the subject matter little. The only question that should be considered here is: per RNEUTRAL, is this term one that's been established by reliable sources to have due weight and therefore meets the criteria for NPOV redirects? I don't have an answer to that myself as I haven't looked at the proportion of sources that use the term, but I think that's what should be focused on here. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very quick Google search demonstrates that the term “Amsterdam pogrom” and “pogrom in Amsterdam” are being widely used to describe the article topic. This strikes me a reasonable search term; I personally used the redirect to initially find the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) EDIT: under wikipedia:RNEUTRAL we are permitted to use non-neutral redirect titles and are in fact given extra leeway because redirects are less visible to readers. Given that the the term has been frequently used in reliable sources and given that it is a reasonable search term for readers to utilize, I really do not see a justification to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or just delete - the reliable sources used in the article which I spot-checked do not describe this event as a pogrom; at most they quote Israeli officials doing so. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands per Ymblanter. The segregation and deportation of Jews in the Netherlands was a gradual and meticulous process. The holocaust article also has no redirects or incoming links from articles having "pogrom' in the title. If a president naming a recent incident as a pogrom, is irrelevant opinion, a group of Wikipedia editors characterizing the Holocaust in the Netherlands as comprising of a pogrom, is not any less. But if we have other redirects titled "pogrom" targeting holocaust articles where "pogrom" is not mentioned, or pogroms didn't happen, then I would like to look at those, and possibly reconsider. Jay 💬08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same redirect. The one at the November 25 page - the plural Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam, was nominated when its target the singular Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam, was an article. The singular was BLARd around 5 hours after the first nomination, and it was nominated (current redirect under discussion) another 5 hours later, and it was too late to bundle them together. Jay 💬08:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Holocaust in the Netherlands does not appear to cover pogroms, and the use of this to 'November 2024 Amsterdam attacks' is a massive neutrality violation.
Keep. As the target notes, any commentators incorrectly called the attack a pogrom. Neutrality isn't an issue per WP:RNEUTRAL. The Holocaust article does not speak about any pogroms in Amsterdam or elsewhere but rather an efficiently brutal genocidal administration, so it does not appear to be an accurate historical rendering to target this there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is terminology that was created primarily from a Key & Peele sketch. Searching for "fpoon" brings up exclusively K&P related videos and the urban dictionary citing them. While this might be a portmanteau of "fork" and "spoon", this is not a widely accepted or cited synonym, and is not mentioned at the target. The common and non-confusing name for this subject is "spork"; a lack of pageviews indicate that "fpoon" may be a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, and is likely to confuse readers. Especially so as "fpoon" is not a real word, or particularly grammatical. People who use this term may very well be looking for the Continental Breakfast K&P sketch, lol. Utopes(talk / cont)08:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do know Key & Peele are hardly the first to come up with this portmanteau. My Elementary School came up with this term (to roarous laughter) sometime in the mid 2000's, significantly predating Key & Peele's coining, and I would have to guess we got it from somewhere just as they did. Conceptually, the jump to a inverted portmanteau is pretty simple, and while it may not be a word I draw serious issues with litigating the legitimacy of a word in a Wikipedia RfD log. Considering there is no central authority for accepted language in English, the fact that Googling the term provides several results (no mater how focused on one subject they may be) is, I think, enough of a reason to say it is a word. Beyond all of that, fpoon is no more grammatical then spork, we're just used to spork. (yes, the fp is not a frequently found constant grouping in English, but novel use of a constant group is hardly cause to call something not a word, if it was than vroom, vlog, dreamt, and bulb are all in trouble (vr, vl, mt, and lb respectively)). Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It's funny" and "people have come up with it before" are not valid arguments to retain the redirect. There has to be some evidence of common usage to refer to sporks in that way, which there isn't. See also WP:NOTNEO for more details. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meh, it's a somewhat plausible {{R from incorrect name}}, and its existence potentially prevents this title from being recreated. (That, and I doubt that the invention of a fork with a spoon-like end, like a handle, four-prong with three holes, then curved end, which is what I picture a "fpoon" being, makes any sense to invent.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just realized I'm actually thinking of the more likely search term "foon", which is a redirect to a different target that has a hatnote referring readers to Spork. This nominated redirect is nonsense due to the inclusion of the "p". Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm shocked foon doesn't redirect to spork, as I've definitely heard that one a lot. Fpoon doesn't seem far off from that, and I don't really think the target is ambiguous... surely Key and Peele aren't the only ones to have ever used the term. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were plausible for any utensil, it would be a spoon with long s, i.e. ſpoon. Even then I don't think it useful; we shouldn't go around creating "f" redirects for every word with an initial or medial "s" merely because someone might confuse an old long-s spelling with an f-spelling. fpork wouldn't make sense for the current target even with a long-s, especially since the long s fell out of favour before the spork was invented in 1874. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to wiktionary for now - if the entry there fails verification then we'll have our answer and it will be G8-ed. Otherwise we'll have our answer than it's a rare but present nickname and it will point somewhere than actually mentions the term. * Pppery *it has begun...18:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presidentman's addition seems like a trivial passing mention to me. If someone asks: "Does Wikipedia have relevant content related to Headwaters Country Jam?" I think the answer is "no". I don't think the Cardwell, Montana would be improved by further additions related to this subject. Daask (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If others found sources that could be used to create an article, I'm fine with deleting. I added the mention because I felt the redirect was worth keeping in some form, but there didn't look like enough significant coverage for an article based on my searches. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention added to Cardwell, Montana, was in the lead. I have moved it down to a section. I think in the absence of a contextual mention in any other article, this redirect should be retargeted per Presidentman. If there is more information about the festival to be added, with regards to Cardwell as the host, I'm sure a paragraph can be added. Jay 💬17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem, Redirect to Fortnite Battle Royale, where it is mentioned. I struggle to see how redirecting a to a linguistics article with the term as a passing example is helpful. We don't have redirects like breakhead(literal translation of Spanish word rompecabeza) targetting puzzle. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, Forkknife (without a space) unambigously refers to the fortnite meme. Catalk to me!09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've reverted, since you removed the RFD tag, and it should be either here or on the talk page of the redirect, or both. I did check it, and there's no mention on the page you gave, but there is a few pages later. It's a single bare listing, with no context or corroboration. Given that no one else has been able to able to verify this, I'm dubious of the reliability of the source, and if nothing else, the usefulness. Furthermore, given how many other entries from this book you've created, it would seem to be a mass creation in violation of your current editing restrictions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a mass creation contrary to Rich's editing restrictions. @35.139.154.158: your repeated references to Rich's restrictions where they definitely don't apply is bordering on harassment at this point. Knock it off.
Rich, adding references to redirects is odd, readers typically don't see the content of redirects. Is there a way to add this information to the article instead? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surprisingly (to me) this seems to be attested despite very limited online hits: Franklin, Benjamin; Smyth, Albert H. (1905). The writings of Benjamin Franklin. New York, London: Macmillan Co.; Macmillan & Co. OCLC1158474884. Retrieved 2024-11-28. (on page 186). I'm very unsure how someone would end up searching for this term without knowing it was a pseudonym of Franklin's however.
This may be added to the target at the "Success as an author" section where it says He frequently wrote under pseudonyms. If we have 3 or 4 names, Cilla Single can be mentioned alongwith them. Jay 💬06:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is from the article before the merger: The Du Page 3 refers to the Chicago suburbs of Burr Ridge, Hinsdale, and Oak Brook. Not mentioned in the article. -1ctinus📝🗨22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No pages currently link to DuPage 3; it has had 7 page views in the 90 days prior to the RFD. No pages currently link to Du Page 3; it had 2 page views in the 90 days before the RFD.
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdraw. [non-admin closure. Will change redirect target to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) per discussion at WT:VG and recommendation of Axem Titanium, see final comment.]
lovecký salám (hunting salami, apparently) is mentioned in the article, but not necessarily its "traditional" variant. has incoming links, but their classification as traditional seems to be unsourced and not necessarily correct cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lovecký salám was applied for as a EU Traditional Speciality Guaranteed-product (TSG). That means that -in order to use the name- all products in the EU have to be produced according to the specs provided in the application. following opposition, the name Tradiční Lovecký salám was accepted as a TSG (see here). That means that one can use the name Lovecký salám without regards to what the product looks like, but Tradiční Lovecký salám is subject to the characteristics in the description. The name is therefore worth a redirect as people may be interested and this is the closest page we can offer. Having said that, the current characterisation of Lovecký salám as a TSG i incorrect; and I will change that. An alternative is redirecting to List of traditional specialities guaranteed by country, but for me that feels too generic... L.tak (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
L.tak has provided a lot of useful information, but that should have been in the article. Delete per nom, if the target doesn't say what the redirect term is. Jay 💬20:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that you have registered today and the only edit you did id on this page. Do you mind to elaborate your point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge what little there is, place a redirect if really necessary, but I think due to how general the title is, that due to WP:RECENT within a few months it will be back here to be deleted due to lack of precision. TiggerJay(talk)08:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are not calling it a pogrom in their own voice and are simply quoting people describing the event as such, or just mention it in the headline (WP:HEADLINES). The only sources that are asserting it was a pogrom are 6: Townhall (WP:MREL), Legal insurrection (not a RS, looks like a glorified blog), Israel National News (not a RS, it's an Israeli Zionist media network), NYSun (a conservative news website known for dishonest reporting), a blog from ToI (WP:NEWSBLOG) and finally, and unsurprisingly, Jpost (not precisely known for fact checking and currently under discussion re: their reliability). - Ïvana (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put on hold. As long as the singular title exists as a redirect, there's no possible reason to treat this separately from it; any retargeting there should be performed here too. If the singular gets deleted, this should be deleted too — no good reason to delete singular and keep plural. And if anything else happens to the singular (e.g. converted to disambiguation page), this should remain a redirect there, since it's 100% related and wouldn't be a double redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the listing of the Pogrom redirect here to avoid confusion. The singular is already being discussed at the November 24 page, and a duplicate listing here could prompt new/existing participants to start voting on that. Smallangryplanet already has the same opinion in both discussions. Participants who wish to discuss the singular can do so at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam. Jay 💬07:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Holocaust in the Netherlands. Let's get real here. I don't know the ins and outs of what happened in Amsterdam the other night. What I do know is that it did not kill three quarters of the Jews of the Netherlands. [28] If Greek or Armenian football fans were to be non-fatally attacked in modern Istanbul, that is obviously not the primary idea of anti-Greek/Armenian pogroms in Istanbul Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the target notes, many commentators incorrectly called the attack a pogrom. Neutrality isn't an issue per WP:RNEUTRAL and the use of the word is discussed at the article. The Holocaust article does not speak about any pogroms in Amsterdam or elsewhere but rather an efficiently brutal genocidal administration, so it does not appear to be an accurate historical rendering to target this there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to 2023 Dutch general election. People aren't exactly happy with doing that, but unless there's a consensus to delete (which there is nowhere near, despite grumblings) then this has to target something. And of the two targets there's more support for the standalone article than the section, so here we go.
How did this end up redirecting to WoW? Apparently, this somehow got redirected to the wrong franchise. Slight research shows that it's supposed to be from Wheel of Time. That being said, there doesn't seem to be a mention on that on there either. It appears that "The Band of the Red Hand" is a more common name for that in-universe group that the articles do mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was an article which existed for a short time, but was then BLARed by the creator/sole substantive contributor, Galaxybeing. If GB gives the go-ahead, this could probably just be G7ed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and tag with {{R with possibilities}}; I added PKS 1402-012 to the bulleted list at Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources pulling a reference from the redirect page history that I thought was the most general (I didn't parse through those 33 references too thoroughly though). This doesn't quite satisfy WP:SELFRED, but there's enough in the page history to benefit another editor if this object becomes more notable. Should GalaxyBeing request deletion, I trust that decision. ― Synpath20:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galaxybeing created the article in June and BLARd it in September as non-notable. Delete considering this as a de facto WP:G7, as the most siginificant contributor who decided that the article should no longer be there. Also, remove the mention of it from the target, since it won't be a bluelink, and should not be a redlink or an unlinked entry, and remove it from {{Virgo (constellation)}} as well. Jay 💬15:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am in favour of redirecting them all to Descent from Genghis Khan, as a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid is, strictly speaking, a descendant from Genghis Khan, not an earlier Borjigin, while Genghis Khan himself was obviously not a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid, but a Borjigin only. Redirecting to a section always risks link rot anyway, as section titles often change or they are rearranged, while Descent from Genghis Khan as a whole will presumably always be dedicated to this very subject. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section redirects are useful in taking the reader straight to the relevent part of a large article. A link from Genghisids to Borjigin can confuse the reader, since the Borjigin article does mention Genghisids in the lead. Link rot can be reduced by linking to an anchor rather than a section name, e.g. {{anchor|Genghisids}}. An editor is likely to preserve the anchor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw if you meant to nominate all of them, then no. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, you could try this mass xfd tool. then again, it doesn't matter much, since anyone could just do whatever is deemed necessary with them after this is closed (except deleting, that's an admin thing) cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this version of the Chingisid article. The broadest meaning of the term is "to do with Ghengis Khan", and could mean "descended from Ghengis" but could have various other meanings depending on context. Possibly the solution would be to pick the spelling used in the largest number of articles and make it a disambiguation page pointing to Descent from Genghis Khan, Yassa, Khanate and Golden Horde. Point the other spellings to the disambiguation page. Links can then be cleaned up to point to the page that discusses the intended meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been intending to create a new article on the Chinggisid dynasty for some time. If others are amenable, I can get started in the next couple of days. The first nine redirects can then target that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the dynasty is the dominant meaning of the term (I don't think it is, may be wrong), the forms of Chingisid would redirect to Chinggisid dynasty, which would have a hatnote {{Otheruses|Chinggisid (disambiguation)}}, and Chinggisid (disambiguation) would list the other meanings. We need a list of all pages that use some variant of the word, with or without a link, showing what they mean by it. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Chingisid dynasty" as such makes much sense. There are competing definitions of what a "dynasty" even is; a series of hereditary monarchs who each sat on the throne, excluding all their relatives who didn't? The entire family of that series of hereditary monarchs? The "state" or "empire" governed by them? Etc. See the discussions about Rurikid dynasty and category:Rurik dynasty, where we ended up renaming them to just Rurikids and Category:Rurikids. Similarly, see the recent scholarly work of Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023, The Ruling Families of Rus, where the whole concept of a dynasty is heavily criticised as an outdated and ambigious concept that erases lots of people from history who didn't sit on the throne, despite wielding significant political or otherwise power and influence for sometimes decades. (Note: they also discuss 'house', 'clan' and 'family', and end up choosing 'family', as can be seen in the title.) If there is to be a new article, separate from the existing ones on Borjigin and Descent from Genghis Khan, I strongly recommend that the title be Chingisids, and to omit a word like 'dynasty'. NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: But really, I think such an article might easily become a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the existing articles, so let's make sure it would have added value separate from what we've already got, or integrate such contents into our existing articles. My question here is just to make consistent redirects. NLeeuw (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but similarly, lots of people were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "Romans", and yet histiographical convention names a great number of them "Byzantines", for example. We could theoretically always merge everything, but we'll soon end up with articles that are WP:TOOLONG (e.g. List of Roman emperors should imo have been split, because it's way too long to navigate comfortably, and we already had List of Byzantine emperors.) Although I made a plea for not splitting off a new articles named Chingisids above if there was no obvious need, I think we shouldn't underestimate the value of splitting up articles either. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Descent from Genghis Khan is a very odd article that should probably be redirected, but Chinggisid is distinct from the wider Borjigin term primarily because it was descent from Genghis, not general membership of the Borjigin, that legitimised rule in the post-Mongol world. See discussion in e.g. May 2017. While the Borjigin altan urugh (golden family) included the descendants of Genghis's brothers and of his children by concubines such as Kolgen, they were not eligible for rulership because they were not Chinggisid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I see a solution. I will expand Chinggisids until it is reasonably complete; Borjigin needs also a little bit of expansion and a lot of rewriting to match current scholarship (many of its sources are half a century old and vastly out of date).Meanwhile, Descent from Genghis Khan should be renamed and refocused onto the matter of genetic descent from Genghis—i.e. the numerous papers that have been released after the "16 million descendants" article from 2003.All redirects seem fairly self-explanatory then, except for Jochid/Jochids which should probably redirect to Golden Horde, and Family tree of Genghis Khan which would probably work best as a redirect to Chinggisids, if I can figure out how the family tree thing works. Thanks for bringing matter up, NLeeuw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I would recommend doing a search query in reliable sources to check for the WP:COMMONNAME. We better prevent endless disputes about how to spel "Chingisids" (I don't care which, but we need to pick one). NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams appears to overwhelmingly agree. I'm a bit surprised; I'm not that familiar with the double g spelling. Halperin 1987, which I use a lot for reference, has single g, single s, and some of his sources are single g, double s, but apparently they are in the minority. Ngrams shows the double g, single s spelling quickly gaining ground from the 1990s onwards. Seems like you've chosen the right title, so I guess that settles it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the outcome of the discussion above, but we haven't yet formally agreed that we are going to resolve the question this way, so let's make it official. NLeeuw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As above, Chinggisids is the COMMONNAME for the new destination, and it has sufficient independent notability to exist as a distinct article. That resolves most of the confusion with the transliterations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteThis site and other, seemingly less reliable, sources indicate that "Lu Tianna" is a Chinese-language name adopted by or used to refer to Gillibrand. There is precedent to keep these sorts of names, as seen in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Foreign language redirects to Kamala Harris. But, unlike Harris's Chinese names, I don't find evidence of widespread use. I am willing to reconsider if evidence that this is indeed commonly used by Chinese speakers to refer to Gillibrand exists. Note that Lu Tian Na, which is used here by the New York Times, exists as well. I am not a Chinese speaker so cannot say if the number of words makes a difference. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is treated like a Chinese name, then the variant spellings available from "Lu Tianna" would be "Lu Tian-na", "Lu Tian-Na", "Lu Tian Na" -- and the flipped forms "Tianna Lu", "Tian-na Lu", "Tian Na Lu" -- NYT uses one of the styles you can do with the syllables. In the PRC, the preferred form would have a single "word" to represent a name, so "Lu Tianna" if Lu is the surname and Tianna is the given name. This isn't the preferred style used in Hong Kong or Taiwan though. That is dependent and independent on romanization method, as some people style their names differently from the romanization method's preferred form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Her Chinese name is known by the Chinese-language world, used by Chinese-language media. I can search a bunch of news article if I search on Google by her Chinese name "陸天娜" [29][30][31]. The name Lu Tianna (陆天娜; 陸天娜) is used by herself, pretty irrelevant to her English name. Lu Tianna, Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, Lu Tian-na are essentially the same, just with or without space or hyphen. It is just the difference of transliteration, all of them are used to some degree (and actually "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration). However, the transliteration is not a conventional way to refer to her, not in Chinese media or English media. This makes me doubt but I am still leaning that it is more useful than harmful. Sun8908Talk14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. It seems other Chinese language name will preferred from Kirsten. Unfortunately, there is no absolutely match why did transliterated in other romanization name. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only if Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, and Lu Tian-na are also deleted, or bundled here. Per Sun8908, "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration, so I don't see why this should be deleted if the others can stay. Jay 💬17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too was confused about those. I guess my nomination statement wasn't clear enough. I meant that "FC Türkiye II" does not seem to refer to the main team of the soccer club FC Türkiye Wilhelmsburg. It might refer to the B-team of the same club, but there is no mention of this phrase in the current version of the article. Hope that clarifies things, Ivanvector and Pppery. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete Nobody wants to keep this as is, there's some movement to retarget to the disambiguation, but even there deletion is prefered and I have to close as one or the other
No such list of Chalcolithic cultures exists at the target. This does not appear to be a subject that is discussed on Wikipedia at this time. Previously existed as a list with one entry.
This title may be able to be salvaged if the list of Neolithic cultures is expanded to include Chalcolithic cultures. However, searching for an article about a "Copper Age list" and being sent to an article about a "Stone Age list" does not seem generally helpful in a vacuum, and would be confusing to readers if there is no indication or hatnote about why they ended up here (that there may not have been enough content to substantiate an individual page for Chalcolithic). Utopes(talk / cont)00:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus Numerically slightly more support for deletion but Fieari's argument for keeping has gone unrefuted.
There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes(talk / cont)08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article
comment Each of the three division articles has a list of the stations within the division. These lists appear to be incomplete do I cannot give an appropriate target, but whichever applies would be a good target. Mangoe (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not mentioned, so this redirect shouldn't exist. Moreover, just because "it's a thing" doesn't mean the article on Google Books needs to say anything about it. Our article should be a broad overview of the site -- what it does, its history, etc etc. A random technical detail of how it keeps track of ISBN-less books internally would be inappropriate to add. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP. An (incredibly brief) Google search of GGKEY doesn't bring up anything other than guides on how to find a book by ISBN or similar identifiers, so it doesn't really seem to have the notability to warrant a mention at the article. Tessaract2Hi!20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:BD2412. Notable that this and other disruptive delete request were made by a blocked sock, and then argued and supported by one IP editor, who has done very little for the past 6 months but vote delete in RfDs. -- GreenC16:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best target. The idea that we should delete and recreate redirects every time some redirectable word or phrase is removed or added to an article is contrary to many good things including common sense. All the best: RichFarmbrough11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per IP. I disagree with Rich Farmbrough entirely - we should have redirects only if they are mentioned at the target, and any exceptions to that rule are traps that it's our duty to defang as we come across them. * Pppery *it has begun...18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery et al. The fact that this redirect was nominated by a sock is irrelevant. Nobody will find this useful if it isn't mentioned anywhere, and we don't want to leave readers asking themselves what this means. CycloneYoristalk!07:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had voted to delete GGKEY (identifier) at an earlier RfD, and at the time I did not ask to bundle GGKEY, nor nominate it myself because it had incoming links (it still has), and I had hoped someone will have some useful information to add to some article. More than an year later, we still don't, but many of our citations have linked this, hence it is useful, and I am hopeful the current target can have a mention. Delete for now. Jay 💬17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What‽ It's absolutely discussed there! One example: In day-to-day life, the clock is consulted for periods less than a day, whereas the calendar is consulted for periods longer than a day. --Tavix(talk)22:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteish. I think XY is more important here. My gut tells me that this was intended to refer to clocks that have calendars built in, and that the off chance that someone looks for this (especially unlikely given the slash), they're probably looking for that. There's also a deleted Clock calendar page (as OR, via a prod), which might back that up. There's also Calendar Clock Face, but that's kind of a stretch. And there's stuff like Prague astronomical clock, an actual clock that even has a section devoted to a calendar mechanism that it contains. In all, I just don't think there's a good target here, especially given the odd formatting with the slash. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by I think XY is more important here? WP:XY supports retargeting, not deletion. Also, that Clock calendar was deleted doesn't back anything up. Someone had posted File:Clock calendar.jpg along with their personal explanation of what it means. That abolutely should have been deleted, but it has no bearing on the redirect at hand. --Tavix(talk)16:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was a little unclear...by "more important", I mean that I think it's a case of XY without a good retargeting option. That's a fair point about the old deleted article given that image upload. But that gut feeling I was talking about is also backed up by a simple web search, which comes up with endless clocks that have calendar functions built in (which is probably most digital ones at this point). Even if both are technically mentioned where you propose, it's a bit of a stretch that it's actually going to be a helpful target. It's hard to imagine that anyone doesn't know what these everyday items are, and even if they don't, it's also unlikely that they're going to search for them together...with a slash in the middle...unless they're looking for something more specific, like some combination device, which isn't mentioned there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm getting at is: if you're reading the redirect to mean "something that has the functionality of both a clock and a calendar", that's one thing...but your rationale for deletion then is notWP:XY. WP:XY is explicitly for the intersection of two topics. When there is a target that discusses both topics, which we have in this case, WP:XY says to retarget there. While I disagree with them, arguments such as with "Delete per the formatting" or "Delete because BigTechCo makes a notable gadget with this name", etc. don't have that problem --Tavix(talk)19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY. Clocks are devices which measure and read out time; calendars are systems of subdividing and numerating an entire year. Some clocks also read out the date but that does not make them calendars. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results for this and "clock calendar" give gadgets that give both the day and the time. Apparantly this is one of the names such things go by. I'm lead to support deletion, but not per WP:XY. XY, per Tavix, does not apply; what we have here is a gadget that is not discussed in our encyclopedia. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should note that between then and now, mentions for some characters have been added. from an extremely cursory glance, georg is now mentioned in his target, and... that's it for this list, really. still not entirely sure that would warrant a redirect cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my votes from the previous RfD: Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD for these: Alen, Apple, Barbarossa, Camille, Gadget, Gaspar, and Grenseal. Georg and Humphrey have mention, but no opinion on how good they are. Others are {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes(talk / cont)09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [33] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes(talk / cont)00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't explain why deleting a redirect to a notable work of fiction would be influenced in any way by sourcing--presumably, non-primary sourcing--for a set of elements that meet WP:CSC clause 2. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources out there which would allow to include some commentary on characters as a group and individually into the target, but which have not yet been employed. Like [34] or [35]. Or, from a very different angle, an analytical comment on player characters on Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens, p. 20-21. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included a rudimentary listing of characters in the Reception section, with potential for expansion based on said secondary sources, which I hope solves the gravest misgivings of Utopes and cogsan. Based on this I'd argue for the inclusion of the old, userfied page into the history of the redirect, as it could be used as a basis to search for more secondary sources, if someone should desire to do so. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think some examples in the reception section would count as enough to warrant a list redirect, so i guess my vote stays for the moment, with equally little prejudice against recreation cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: So what in your view is still lacking for such a redirect to be justified? Number of characters? Description/commentary? Presentation in bulletpoint form or some such? Daranios (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what i think is missing is a list. "list of knives" probably shouldn't link to an article that only mentions santoku and bread knives, as an example. also as an example, characters of deltarune and that other game doesn't mention every character (where's lemon bread?), but it does have a good handful
@Cogsan: Thanks. WP:RETURNTORED starts with "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article". It might, but though it pains me to say, the last AfD dedided that it did not have the potential to be expandied into its own article then. So do you still not like the redirect even though to my knowledge there is no other article which would cover even the four/five characters we have at the target now? Or to look at it from the other direction, what would be the number for characters you would see as the minimum for an embedded list to not want to delete our redirect? Daranios (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem here? Red link or redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD by finding sources that allow a new list article to be written, then you can just do that! Retaining this redirect doesn't help. The redirect does not have the old article history, so that argument for keeping it is moot. The old article history is available and userfied, so you have that. You are arguing like this is AfD but the only consideration is whether this is a useful redirect. On that score, it clearly isn't. There are at least nine articles that show up in search if you look for Neverwinter Nights [36]. Now if someone is looking for a list of Neverwinter nights characters, the redirect chooses to send them to one of these pages and ignore the others. The reader is taken to a page that does not list the characters, and does not meet their information requirement. If anyone were actually interested in all of the characters, they are better off seeing all nine articles listed, which will give them a fuller picture, rather than being taken to a page that does not answer their information requirement but pretends to. I just do not see what the benefit is of retaining a redirect that has no history and no utility. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't the fact that it was deemed that there weren't enough sources for an article then, and that that's still the case now, be more reason to delete?
(edit conflict) I am not sure if I could disprove the AfD in the form of establishing this as a notable topic, and I don't currently have the time (or rather priority based on many other open to-do ideas) to make sure one way or another. And that is not the issue. (I'd be for restoring the userfied history as I said. But the history I was originally referring to was the link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.) I am pretty sure that I could create an embedded list, and for that it would be useful to know opinions how (big) such a list should look to make sense. Just as one project utilizing secondary sources on this topic which have not been (fully) used yet. On the other hand, the AfD did establish this redirect, so redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD does not make sense to me. Rather, deleting the redirect would mean overturning the AfD result. But I guess that's within the prerogative of RfD. Looking at the other hits again I am no longer completely sure if it is best to guide the reader to Neverwinter Nights at this point. We do have five characters there currently, and overall commentary, and it fits better to the redirect title. But other hits do have several characters embedded, too. So withdrawing my keep !vote for the time being, but I am still interested in cogsan's answer to my question above. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is on a case-by-case basis, so the best way to put it is
general franchises: at least most of the major cast being notable, with some wiggle room for a handful of more important/popular yet not very notable ones
general franchises that are really long: if they're not known for more than one character, just go for articles for the few notable ones. otherwise, same criteria seem to apply
novels and other such character-heavy franchises (which nn seems to be): there's usually no plan b for if not enough of them are notable for a list, so to quote a wise scorpion, "lol. lmao."
pokémon: the best way to describe the situation with pokémon and its (human) characters, and how rules related to notability are treated in its context, is doing multiple backflips in a row to distract people from the question while professor elm keeps his entry
it's a complicated case, but it seems neverwinter nights just plain doesn't have enough notable characters in the first place, "major" or not
and granted, this is for if such a list exists in the first place, and since the answer to that in this case is "not anymore lol", it's really just a matter of deleting and hoping the case changes sometime before the sun goes boom cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RfD does not have any authority over article content. We had an AfD, which does have that authority, and declared this should be banished. Now it's time for it to meet its fate. * Pppery *it has begun...01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it appears no one wants to close this as it can't be relisted, and has 4 keeps and 4 deletes. I !voted so can't close it, but I would point out that the keep !votes were all obtained in the first 24 hours or so of listing, and that all delete !votes (other than the nom.) followed later. Also that a fifth keep was struck after engagement in the discussion. Discussions are not a vote, and a straight vote count may be giving an erroneous impression of this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this is still going on a month later. I still feel we would be best served to have the content moved back and kept, but if consensus is going to go to delete, then the old content is still WP:PRESERVED in the user page that I originally noted above. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no list at the target, or anywhere else. Thanks to Daranios for the additions; the 3 characters do not make the list though. Jclemens may move his userfied page to Neverwinter Nights characters, and turn that to a redirect for future revival. Jay 💬18:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
Comment: There is no consensus on this nomination for too long. Suggesting relisting. 67.209.128.31 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
.jpg)
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy revert
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
Comment: For the first 2: These are encoded format names, with spaces substituted with periods/dots/fullstops. It is an affectation of some methods for encoding spaces in URLs by some pieces of software -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Ascensorium
Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus
NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
