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, are an exception to this rule. (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.
Do not keep, do not delete per Tavix's comments. I have no opinion about disambiguation vs. retargeting anymore, but it's rather apparent that the current target is probably not helpful and that deletion benefits no one. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There's a general presumption that redirects are useful to at least the creator, and disambiguating is less disruptive than deleting. Jruderman (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 minute on Google finds plenty of evidence of the county being referred as "Washington, Maryland" (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), hits for Fort Washington are harder to find [4] is ambiguous, but other results are getting swamped by collactions and hits for Mary L. Washington (a Maryland politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's more impressive, the fact that your search only took one minute(!), or the fact that you thought those fringe database sources would be convincing. The Tweet isn't ambiguous, it's saying that the Governor of Maryland was speaking to reporters in Washington, DC. --Tavix(talk)14:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the sources is irrelevant - they demonstrate clearly that "Washington County, Maryland" is sometimes referred to as "Washington, Maryland". Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this exists, all I get for results is a book on Amazon that has no Wikipedia page. It's not mentioned in the band page at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, considering the retargeting option above seems WP:MADEUP. "WP:CHEAP" doesn't apply if it is shown that the redirect is inherently unhelpful and/or misleading, which seems to be the case here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be? Do you have something to substantiate that? Perhaps in Olso or Berlin it's the other way around? No justifiable reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did. By saying this should point somewhere else, you are essentially advocating for deleting what it is now in favor of another. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say this should point somewhere else, it might as well be disambiguated. The current meaning will not be deleted, it will stay with the addition of another one. 1234qwer1234qwer410:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget my searches indicate that the iOS feature is by far and away the primary topic - only two of the hits on the first five pages of search results were not about that topic, the other two were about equivalents on Android. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a very common name for the location. It not being official makes it more likely that someone will be looking up the term here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna go on a limb here ... the WP:PLURALPT for the plural form of the word Germ, a disambiguation page, is most likely Pathogen. The singular "germ" is definitely ambiguous, especially considering the subjects about plant grains, but the plural seems to commonly refer to the terms use in microbiology, and Germ (microorganism) redirects to Pathogen, so ... retarget to Pathogen. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a {{R from move}}, created last month. Questionable utility ... and I thought our previous consensus about similar redirects was to delete them, but looks like WP:RDRAFT has been updated recently? We are now creating redirects from the "Draft:" namespace to the article namespace? Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We always create and keep redirects from draft space to article space. One reason is so that an editor who has a link to the draft and wants to view or edit it will find the article after the draft is accepted. When a draft is accepted, a redirect to article space is always created, and is exempt from six-month expiration, and so is kept. There are sometimes good-faith requests to delete drafts because there is already an article. They are instead speedily redirected to the article. So, yes, there are redirects from draft space to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We always create and keep redirects from draft space to article space." No we don't, which is why I nominated this redirect in the first place since pages in the "Draft:" space created as redirects to the article space have traditionally been deleted at WP:RFD. In addition, none of what you said has anything to do with WP:RDRAFT, considering the redirect was created about a month ago, and has always been a redirect. (The redirect is not a {{R from move}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Not only is the nomination misleading (it was only released about a fortnight ago) this is getting over 200 hits a day and got over a thousand on the 10th, which is unsurprising when you realise that that was the day of its release. This is very clearly still in use. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a recurring attack for sephiroth in a lot of his appearances since his debut... but also for kefka. if both appear in a playable or boss form in any given game, heartless angel tends to go to whoever pops up first, which is usually kefka. if you want to be technical, sephiroth gets it more often overall because he gets more appearances, but results seem to associate it equally with both (give or take sephiroth being mentioned more often overall). even then, heartless angel isn't mentioned in either of their articles. if not deleted, i don't know if it should be kept there or retargeted to kefka, to final fantasy#gameplay, or to recurring elements in the final fantasy series#gameplay, because it'd be hard to cram an unsourced mention (or worse, a mention with a guide as the source) into those otherwise good or featured articles cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Soooo... the move gets a "kind of" mention in Kefka's article, as "Fallen Angel", although the actual Woolsey translation rendered it in game as "Fallen One" on the SNES (as can be confirmed by looking up a playthrough on youtube). This is the move that got commentary from a reliable source, and was worth the mention in the article. Now, I believe you're probably right that it's been updated in newer versions/releases of the game to Heartless Angel, as the Final Fantasy fandom wiki uses that term, but it doesn't seem to have garnered any commentary in reliable sources. Google, on the other hand, shows overwhelming preference to linking the term with Sephiroth instead of Kefka, likely due to the relative popularity of FFVII over FFVI... except that most if not all of these hits I'm finding are not from WP:RS. Which leaves us in the awkward position where there's clear analysis that would be interesting to discuss... that we can't use because none of it has gone through editorial publishing processes. I can't decide whether that means we should delete the redirect because we don't really have information on exactly it under that name, redirect to Kefka because the thing this redirect refers to IS directly named and described there... except under a different name (which is even incorrect, despite being published in a WP:RS!), or to keep the redirect because usage online clearly prefers Sephiroth as the WP:PTOPIC even though we don't and probably can't mention it there! Fieari (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Kefka article mentioned "Fallen Angel" as the name of the move bothered me enough that I added an endnote with the correction, and a mention to the renaming of it to Heartless Angel. Not sure if this is the best way to go about it, but surely the primary source material can be used just for a correction of this sort. Fieari (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, i'd say nuke it until a reliable source decides to cover the attack (and actually get the name right)
also yeah, i did say results preferred sephiroth, because ff7 is the only final fantasy game people can remember the existence of for more than 15 seconds. coverage of final fantasy elements kind of sucks tbh cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk of the target and Kefka Palazzo pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬15:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this event occurred in Bulgaria and concerned the Bulgarian Turks. It has nothing to do with Macedonian language. Jingiby (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unmentioned on the target page. With a bit of digging I found ro:Râul Măluț which just says "The Măluț River is a watercourse, a left tributary of the Talna River in Satu Mare County, Romania.". It's not the only tributary and nothing seems to indicate it is a particularly significant one so simply adding it to the article would seem a bit misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that a variant spelling for a village with 536 inhabitants (which redirects to the commune's article) is the primary topic, given that Malut is also a commonly used shortening for North Maluku (Maluku Utara), an Indonesian province with more than a million inhabitants.
Malut (disambiguation), which is currently a primary-and-one-other dab, could be moved to the base name instead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about this one. The subject exists (per third party searches) and is linked at List of Netflix original films (2020) in the list of film released that year. But ... the fact that this title is a redirect and not an article seems to validate WP:REDYES deletion. However, the subject of this redirect is mentioned twice in the biographical article about its subject, Guillermo Vilas: Once in the last paragraph of the article's top section, and once in the last paragraph of Guillermo Vilas#ATP ranking No. 1 controversy. I am not sure if either of these targets are viable retargeting options for this redirect, or if the redirect should be deleted to promote the creation of an article (though my preference here is deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I am skeptical of the value of red links in prompting article creation. I think it's better to have a red link than no link at all, where an article can potentially be written, but better to have a redirect than a red link where the article is really unlikely to actually be written. The ultimate end question is what best serves the reader looking for information on the subject. BD2412T23:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Fair enough. "WP:REDLINK" Might be another guideline and/or essay excerpt that I need to add to my "questionable utility" list. I'm just ... not sure if the current setup is adequate since the subject of this redirect has article potential, and I do not believe I've seen any other cases where a redirect representing a biographical media (book, film, etc.) redirects to the human subject of the biography rather than having an article about itself or being a redirect that targets a section in another article identifying and explaining itself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are cases where it makes sense, where the subject is discrete and the likely topic of a writeable article, and cases where a redirect is more defensible. BD2412T19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "fax" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer to and/or define. The only other article on Wikipedia I can find that mentions such terms in context is John the Baptist, but with the way the term "fax" is used in that article pertaining to "hair", it makes it seem as though these nominated redirects are some sort of suffix. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added an etymology section to the page on Hair so it is now in the target article. Fax is attestated in modern English, not only Middle English, even if its usage has since become rare. Ingwina (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the page "The now broadly obsolete word "fax" refers specifically to head hair".
I feel like if fax means hair, the word should redirect to the whole page - is there precedent for redirecting to the specific section mentioning the word if the word refers to the wider article? I don't have too strong views about this bit though - it just depends on the nuance of wikipedia policy to me! Ingwina (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingwina: The reason why I'm suggesting for at least Fax (hair) to target Hair#Etymology is the section directly exposing what "fax" means in the context of the subject of the article. In this case, keeping the target as Hair with no section redirect would be if the word was immediately established to be an alternative used in present day, which it seems this word may not be. Either way, that section seems to best explain why this term redirects to any part of the Hair article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situation I haven't run into here: This was a BLAR to an article that does not currently mention the subject, but restoring the article would go against WP:NFF, which means there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that the article would survive AfD. I think the best approach is restore article but draftify, which is the better way to incubate something in development hell anyways. (Normally I wouldn't take something to RfD just to !vote restore, since anyone can do that, but if I were to unilaterally restore and draftify I feel like that would be backdoor deletion of the redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/Draftify per nom. You make a good case for it, and I appreciate the reasoning for going through the RfD process. Fieari (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Draftify or AfD after restoration? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, this is really two separate issues. The draft(s) can be restored and draftified, if desired. What needs to be determined here is: Are these appropriate titles to point (i.e redirect) to targets in the mainspace? — Godsy (TALKCONT)18:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't predict now whether there will be updates in the next six months. But even if there aren't, having deleted history be at a draftspace title is helpful for if the film does get made years from now, letting a future editor know that they can have it undeleted. And if that doesn't happen and it does just get G13'd and never undeleted, then we're no worse off. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was once a redirect to KWBT (FM), which used to use the KBCT call sign, but that article was redirected due to lack of notability. There is no mention of this at Infinity Sports Network, which became the target to avoid a double redirect, or at KWBT (FM)'s current target of List of radio stations in Texas. The KBCT call sign has since been reassigned to a new FM station in Missouri, but there's no notability there either (I just reverted an attempt to create a stub on it that ultimately did not overwrite this redirect). At this point I can't really see any further reason to retain this redirect in any capacity. WCQuidditch☎✎04:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target of all of these related redirects is a section that no longer exists in the target article. (These are all related to fictional characters or works within the fiction of the show itself — hence doubly fictional, which presumably is why the content didn't survive.) There doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the main Arthur (TV series) article, either. Nor in Marc Brown (author), our article for the author of the Arthur books. Propose deleting these unless some other appropriate target can be found. - dcljr (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not recently created so doesn't fall under R3, but seems entirely implausible that someone would ever actually type this into their search bar. EggRoll97(talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history and keep there is a lot of deleted history here, with the earliest dating back to 2002, however the earliest history is now at Wikipedia:Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki after history merging. However, this title was speedily deleted under G6, apparently unprompted (the last activity on the page was two years previously), by RHaworth in 2019. The rationale given was "created in the wrong namespace" but that is incorrect since it was originally created before namespaces existed (RHaworth was later desysopped, in part due to misuse of speedy deletion). This is getting a lot of his - over 200 so far this year even with none recorded for - so it's clearly still providing a useful function. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history, keep, mark as historical. As per Thryduulf, this is a restoration of an old camelcase redirect that existed before namespaces was a thing. Let history remain preserved. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone entering this title is probably looking for F. Scott Fitzgerald, but the omission doesn't seem to have affinity (AFAICT he was never referred to as "F. Fitzgerald"). If you search for "F. Fitzgerald", F. Scott Fitzgerald is the first result, so the redirect doesn't have much navigational value either. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thruduulf. It does not lack affinity, by the way, as excluding a middle name is a reasonable thing to do in many cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Isn't "this modification could just as well apply to a vast number of other titles" the definition of "lacks affinity"? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa:Affinity applies to things like a period at the end of a title, being in quotes, etc. In other words, an error that could apply to almost absolutely any title. A title without a middle name only applies to names, and furthermore only names including a middle name. It is always reasonable to leave out a middle name for a redirect, as long as there is no ambiguity in what's covered (or there is a primary topic as in this case). I would support that every single time. I would not support every single title having a redirect from that title in quotes or with a full stop at the end and so forth. Affinity is in regard to much broader variants, not specific ones like this. This situation clearly does not apply to every title (or a vastly broad enough swath of titles). Even if it did, it would still be appropriate all the time, rendering affinity double moot. — Godsy (TALKCONT)09:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem to be occasionally used in product listings and non-RS. If there were usage of the term to refer to anyone else, that low-quality usage wouldn't be weighted very strongly, but the only search results I see are spurious ones about John F. Fitzgerald. (The sources still write out the entirety of "John F. Fitzgerald"; Google just includes them because the substring matches.) Limited usage trumps no usage, so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what subject this redirect is meant to define. From a preliminary search of Wikipedia, it seems this redirect is mentioned nowhere. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to stun gun, which mentions the current target. Hesitant because 'stun weapons' are not really described at that target. Might be better to return this to red for now. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm legitimately befuddled that this isn't mentioned and discussed in detail at the target article, given how much a staple it is in sci-fi. Making a character sleep without actually hurting them is just such a USEFUL thing for a writer to be able to do, that even in non-scifi works you get things like that one punch that harmlessly KOs you, or chloroform, or a sleeping drug or whatever. In sci-fi, they definitely use stun guns all the time, from Star Wars to Star Trek and beyond. It's a trope for a reason. Normally, when I feel like article creation should be encouraged I !vote delete to redlink it, but here, I don't think it deserves its own article at all... I just think it should be included in this one. Err... not that I'm volunteering to write it though. Not sure what to do in this situation. Fieari (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Raygun - it's a scifi weapon that shoots rays, that mentions stunning: A wide range of non-lethal functions as determined by the requirements of the story: for instance, they may stun, paralyze or knock down a target, much like modern electroshock weapons.. BugGhost🦗👻12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a misremembering of the song's name that became a siivagunner meme. not mentioned in the target or notable on its own, BUT it might actually be a plausible search, as it's ironically become a common misremembering later on (or siiva is just that influential on public musical knowledge, it's hard to tell). opinions? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is indeed harmless, and not implausible for someone using a device without easily accessible punctuation characters. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any reliable sources that used this name, and most sources that use it seem to be directly copying the distinctive phrasing of the article "Quail, Quail, Quarry sometimes in New Jersey and New England)", which was added in 2020 by User:Duckduckgooseking1. I've removed the name from the article and unless it's reintroduced the redirect should be deleted as well. Rusalkii (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (maybe speedily as a hoax?). Good catch. I can't find anything on Google that doesn't appear directly sourced to our article when the content was there (and even still, only 4 pages of hits). Zero hits in newspapers.com, ebescohost, archive.org's library, the DBs I have access to via proquest, nor gbooks. It's possible it's a real term but should be deleted until there's some source that didn't originate from us. Skynxnex (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Steel. There are occasions when regularly updating redirects is fine (Recent deaths comes to mind) but the index is better in most cases, especially when people might not always want the most recent. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SPOILER, which says "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Just because they are allowed doesn't mean they should be put front and center or directly included in redirects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, and ... since I now want to play a Dragon Quest game just to spend hours looking for an enemy that has a maximum evasion statistic, maximum defense, low health, and awards tons of experience if it is defeated before it runs away. (Either that, or I want to watch a Terminator film.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note: there may only actually be one other video game character named ciel. apparently two of them are the exact same ciel, and one of them might not be from a game. would be less confusing if pokémon reborn was notable enough for an article, but eh cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target, and contents of the gigapixel article doesn't contain any technical relevance that would be applicable to peta-, exa-, zetta-, or yottapixel images. The size difference between a gigapixel image and a yottapixel image is huge - printed at 300dpi (standard magazine quality print), a gigapixel image would be about the size of a kingsize bed, while a yottapixel image would have about the same surface area as Neptune, and (if stored at 24bits/pixel) would require 6000x the storage capacity of all of AWS to store it as a png.
These seem like plausible search terms; someone may be curious to see if these higher designations exist or are used for anything. jp×g🗯️00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still feel the same way I felt about the previous RfD. Basically, if some sci-fi or otherwise speculative writer mentions an absurdly large SI-prefix referring to the size of an image, then the reader should be able to look up the concept of "absurdly large image" on wikipedia, even if the exact level of "absurdly large" is not specifically mentioned. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PANDORA is misleading nonsense that contradicts WP:OTHERSTUFF and causes far more harm than the redirects it advocates deleting. How common these images are is irrelevant - what matters is that people who want to read about them can find the relevant article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target with or without a space. Internet and Google Scholar results did not turn up anything illuminating. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a place (not sure if linking google maps like that works), it just doesn't have an article at present. It had been a stub before being redirected and the corresponding mention of it in Isle Madame (Nova Scotia) was removed a few years ago. I've no idea if the place is notable in any way. older ≠ wiser20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not notable enough to warrant a proper article. About 15 years ago, somebody created an article for it but it's no more than a hamlet on Isle Madame, NS. PKT(alk)15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless, especially if it sounds like something the game itself would do (I have no opinion on that and the images in the article don't help). Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if context is needed, "beating" a "race" with it earns you a crusty png of a trophy, accompanied by the text "you're winner !". it's exactly that bad. an image of that "win screen" wouldn't actually be too bad, now that you mention it cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP, it's harmless, and also... yes. This is exactly the sort of thing the game would be, the irony is NOT lost on me, and I can easily imagine hypothetical searchers intuitively applying similar logic when searching. Very appropriate redirects for the target. If all other rationale fail, I'd !vote keep on grounds of WP:FUNPOLICE alone! Fieari (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my recent mass redirects of Ryukyuan languages come from the supplementary metadata of UniCog (unicog_meta_v1.xlsx) and Nakamoto (1981:459-463) (図説琉球語辞典). Degi is a subarea of Okinoerabu (though information is very obscure; but see here for a postal code number list of Okinoerabu which includes Degi). Chuterix (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nominated by @Jtbwikiman, with the following comment
This redirect is completely inappropriate. I'm proposing that we change it to redirect to Kernel until someone wants to make a new article for Kernel Services.
that's a completely different type of colon. not sure who would write the title in english, switch to a japanese keyboard setting to add that specific colon and nothing else, and then back to a latin one to write the rest cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm an EFL teacher to native Japanese speakers and see my students do this kind of thing all the time. Random "full-width" punctuation and spaces everywhere when they try writing in English. No comment as to whether or not that makes it keepable, but just needed to say... yes, they do this. No, I don't know why, no matter how many times I tell them not to. Fieari (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, coming back to add: I do know why they do this. Japanese keyboards have a button to switch between hiragana/kanji, katakana, and romaji modes, as well as some other modes as well. Japanese users are very familiar with switching between modes multiple times within a single sentence in order to type the characters they need. So they are typing in romaji mode to type the less familiar English characters/words, but then they suddenly come across a character they are used to much more, the colon! So they switch back to kana input to put in the familiar character before switching back to romaji mode to continue typing the unfamiliar parts. As I said, it happens A LOT despite my best efforts to curtail it ("Just keep it on romaji while in English class!") Fieari (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is almost as cursed as turning caps lock on and off for each individual capital letter. still, i don't think it's plausible to do that with an originally japanese game on english wikipedia, but that's a possible wrench in the plan cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fieari presented a good argument on why Japanese speakers might use this redirect. Since redirects have low maintanance burden and the subject is a Japanese game, keep. Catalk to me!02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the explanation given by Fieari. Given this is close, but not identical to WP:RFOREIGN. And given this game has a strong affinity to Japanese and the Japaneses JSP cover, for example, has the title in English also, if it's not uncommon for people to mix the scripts, no reason to delete given how cheap redirects are. Skynxnex (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target. There was a lot (probably too much) content on him earlier, which was removed by User:IPFcomms with the rationale that he was no longer with the org. Unsure if content on him should be in the article, but if it isn't the redirect should be deleted. Rusalkii (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The AfD provided grist to doubt his notability even with the IPF; now that he's no longer there it makes no sense for the redirect to be to IPF. Longhornsg (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this confusing redirect. Between representing the first 2 digits of 1.618, its current target, random version numbers of software firmware, the article about the 1/6 event in the US, and that formatting dates with periods is ... not done, this redirect is just a mess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An untenable redirect. If it were a popular shorthand for the events of a particular January 6, then it would make sense to redirect it to the article on the event article, but, this, no. Nor is it good for the golden ratio, which isn't generally approximated to 1.6. And the original target, Counter-Strike, is opaque, at least to me. I do see a 1.6 Band that would be suitable if a case is made that the band was often referred to as just "1.6". Largoplazo (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article. Phrasing of the redirect is vague regarding if having an exclusive connection to the subject of the target section: When search for this phrase on third-party search engines, one of the top results is 2023 Quran burnings in Sweden. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. If there is a primary topic here it's the 2023 Quran burnings, but I'm also getting a lot of other random results - including surprisingly many different ones related to cardiovascular medicine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. However, it seems a topic by the name of this redirect has some sort of connection to its target: Searching for this word on third-party search engines seems to return results for a political action committee for Donald Trump that looks as though it was active only during the 2016 presidential campaign season. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is not exclusive to the target. (There were controversies in all 3 of Donald Trump's presidential campaigns since 2016. [Not sure about the 2000 one.]) I would suspect there's a place to retargeting this redirect, sort of acting as a disambiguation page, but I'm currently not seeing it. Maybe this should be a WP:BROADCONCEPT? Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for President Donald Trump by white Americans
Couple of concerns with these redirects' wordings:
It's odd that a redirect with this phrasing targets 1 of 4 presidential campaign pages related to Donald Trump running for president. How can there be any guarantee readers searching this phrase are looking for this target?
Specific to the current target, the first redirect contains the phrase "President Donald Trump"; Donald Trump was not a President until after the 2016 campaign.
Not particularly. The redirects allude to groups of people who support for Donald Trump, not Donald Trump's views that could potentially be racist. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect does not seem to identify or describe the target. The target is more about ideologies, and not about those who support Donald Trump. There may be a plausible target out there, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about Trump's ideology and those of his supporters. The lede makes it pretty clear that the two are inextriacbly linked, and there doesn't seem to be a better target. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "neutrality of the state" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what in the target article the redirect is meant to define. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Rivet media attention" is mentioned in the target article, but it doesn't seem mentioned in a way to validate searching this phrase in any form as a way to arrive at the target article. Otherwise, this phrase is probably vague since it may refer to other topics related to Donald Trump. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between this specific phrase and the target unclear. Though MAGA is a rather known phrase, the use of the phrasing of the redirect on third party engines doesn't return results for "MAGA", but rather returns results for tourism in cities named "Maga". Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is used to help categorize people involved in the events of January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol. For example, see Lucas, Ryan. “Where the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation stands, one year later”, NPR (6 Jan 2022): “In the past year, the FBI and the public have learned a lot about who the rioters were and what motivated them, and they fall into three general categories. The first are the so-called MAGA tourists. These are Trump supporters who entered the Capitol but didn't engage in violence or destroy property.” If there are other significant uses of this term, then I’d recommend a disambiguation page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is not known by this name. The article has only had this title for 16 minutes before being moved back. Mia Mahey (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rlang applies here. same reason a korean redirect for a kirby game got deleted 10 days ago. if a source is eventually found, it could potentially be added as a piece of info in the development section, but otherwise, nah. the same rationale applies to the nomination just below this one. deletecogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The odd title is the result of last-minute changes brought due to the Korean Intelletual Property Office determinination that the original title conflicted with multiple pre-existing products. Strangely I can't find any source that covers this. Catalk to me!09:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought about it for a while, and I say we keep for the Korean-English bilinguals who may not have realized this game was published under a different name in Korea. The reasoning behind WP:RLANG is that readers would be unlikely to search up topics with non-English search terms if the topic is unaffined to the language.
However, the Korean title is a simple English transliteration of
Super Mario Wii 2: Galaxy Adventure Together. "슈퍼 마리오 Wii 갤럭시 어드벤처" contains no Korean words and simply spells out the English title. This may lead readers to think the name is same in English releases too, just not in Hangul. Catalk to me!13:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The words are not exact synonyms, and, more imporatntly, "Imperial Majesty" is a title, but "Imperial Royalty" isn't. Emperors can referred to as "His Imperial Majesty", but no ruler has ever been called "His Imperial Royalty". The redirect as it stands is misleading. If it's to be kept, Emperor would be a better target. Tevildo (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to King-Emperor. They're not synonymous; in the context of monarchy, "imperial" refers to emperors/empresses, and "royalty" only to kings/queens, a lesser dignity. This article is general, not country-specific like "Imperial-royal" or "Imperial and Royal", and the redirect title is about a concept, not about a title like "Imperial and Royal Highness" or "Imperial and Royal Majesty". Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are other wars this term might describe, this one is overwhelming likely to be the one intended. The others can be listed in a disambiguation page linked on a hat note. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. The various wars listed by Thryduulf are perfect fuel for creating a dab page; while the Mexican-American war should probably be the first war listed on the page, it's not primary enough to be directly redirected to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Lunamann; obviously Mexico has been invaded several times. If I didn't know better, I'd expect this to cover the reign of Maximilian. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the invasion that came to my mind first, but I was also a French major. A disambiguation page would be totally appropriate. Bgsu98(Talk)20:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before Arcane, one of the main "mascots" of League. Useful if someone wants to know where the naming of Gothus Teemo comes from for an example in wider culture of just last week. (Note that Teemo probably could be mentioned, but as a Featured Article, the League article is maintained pretty strictly, so it might be arguably under-inclusive in the name of keeping the highest level of sourcing.) SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could probably merit a small sentence-long mention based on this article regarding League's impact on popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given its use on Gothus teemo. Wouldn't be against it being mentioned on the main article, given that the crab is the first species to be named after a League of Legends character, although that's probably to be discussed on the talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
either an implausible misspelling or an implausible pun. i don't know which outcome is worse, but the term doesn't seem to see much (if any) use in the context of sonic, with or without a space cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Keep - Article has mention of "Sonic Wild Fire" as the game's original working title, and a single doubling of a character is a potentially plausible typo, so I don't see a need to go out of our way to delete this thing, but I'll grant that searching the original working title to begin with is a rare proposition, so it's not like I feel strongly about this one. (Entirely possible the redirect creator was making a Wii system pun) Fieari (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel. It was created in 2006, and the properly titled redirect was created less than 3 months later. No information on whether "Wii" was a pun or a typo. Jay 💬17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All redirects were created on the same day by the same creator as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series. Apart from animated films, Chhota Bheem also has a live action film and is a television series. Lack of "film" in the redirect titles was a factor in the deletion of Chhota Bheem 1 and Chhota Bheem 5 at the recently closed RfD WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Chhota Bheem 1. Chhota Bheem 3 redirects back to the parent article that has no listed chronology. I would recommend deletion consistent with the already deleted ones. Jay 💬22:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the linked RfD, the lack of 'film' in the title wasn't my issue with Chhota Bheem 1 and Chhota Bheem 5-- the issue I had was that the redirect target was incorrect, pointing to Chhota Bheem and the Curse of Damyaan (2012 film) instead of the actual first and fifth films: Chhota Bheem Aur Krishna and Chhota Bheem: Journey to Petra. (You may notice that both of those redirect to the Chhota Bheem page itself-- that's because we don't have information on those films.)By that logic:
Target both to Tint, shade and tone. The Lightness article has four mentions of the word Tone according to ctrl-f: the first is a link to Tint, shade and tone that pretty much rephrases that article's title ("Tints, shades, and tones"), the second is a See Also link that also goes to Tint, shade and tone, the third is a third link to Tint, shade and tone, this time as part of the Color Topics template, and the fourth is a link to Pantone that's also in the Color Topics template. From this we can easily deduce that the information someone looking for when they search Tone (color) is *not* on the Lightness page itself, and is instead on the Tint, Shade and Tone page. Retarget as appropriate. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
raymoo hackery is a name generally only seen in shitposts, and i'd honestly be surprised if anyone not nose deep on every touhou rabbit hole knew about it. fittingly, not mentioned in the target, implausible as an actual search (unless you're me), and google gave me nothing reliable cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep and tag as meme. It's plausible that someone finds one of said shitposts, doesn't know how the original name is spelled, and searches "raymoo" to find info on Reimu. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. I personally believe that it is a genuine misspelling or respelling, but you would probably be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that mentions it being a meme or shitpost. Honestly, I don't even remember making this redirect in 2012, but I doubt that "Raymoo Hackery" ever crossed my mind since we would be discussing a "Raymoo Hackery" redirect as well. Regardless, the outcome doesn't really matter to me, so do what you may. — Nameless(?)13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Momentum is swinging towards deletion, but additional opinions are welcome to help clarify if there is a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk16:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Porsche Taycan 'Turbo' models don't actually have a turbocharger, it's just a namesake for a higher-performance model of a car. In that sense, it's kinda misleading. I did a google search, and 'electric turbo' doesn't seem to be a common nickname for the Taycan Turbo models either. Now, looking at retarget options, there does exist electric supercharger (I know technically there's no such thing as an "electric turbo" but that's what {{R from incorrect name}} is for), but having a look at that article, there also exists electrically-assisted turbocharger, so I'm not sure where to retarget it to. — AP 499D25(talk)06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the term can also refer to electric-motor-assist power boost (ie. hybrid vehicle with electric assist drive mode, to add power to the gasoline engine's power output) as "turbo" can just refer to a power boost. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck in favour of the below. I don't know if "Electric Turbo" is used to refer to even electrically-assisted turbocharger. Jay 💬08:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit by the nominator: I would agree with deletion of this particular redirect, recommended by the voters above. The capitalised 'T' does make it sound more like a brand name than a noun. I ran a trademark search (e.g. [5]), and it's not registered anywhere. — AP 499D25(talk)05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still in favour of disambiguation. The term is used in the real world for multiple encyclopaedic things - disambiguation exists to deal with that exact scenario. It can be moved to the lowercase title or a redirect created from that capitalisation, whichever is preferred, as long as people using this search term don't find a red link that's what matters. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may draft one, if you see it feasible. As I mentioned, I tried, and could not come up for your two suggested entries. Jay 💬21:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't need to speak for Nyttend, I guess, since they received notice of this listing, but their edit summary upon creating the redirect was "Created as redirect; I'm constantly making this typo", so the rationale for the current target is bespoke. I don't know why Lectionar protected it the next day, but that it's listed here takes issue with their explanation, "no need to change this". It's possible that this term is more likely to be typed by someone actually looking up the word "cunty" (a word I learned from drag-involved people in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s as a synonym, I think, for "bitchy", often in the phrase "cunty-fierce", to describe a queen's outfit or persona; I have no idea whether it's current or more widespread) than by someone mistyping "county". Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the current target doesn't mention this unlike the proposed one and I can't see how this is a particually likely misspelling especially when there is another mention of it elsewhere which does use the term even if not a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nominator as a more likely search term, I still see the word cunty used as seen above and sometimes as an insult and it doesn't seem like a likely misspelling of county. Schützenpanzer(Talk)00:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creation summary cites this Philadelphia Enquirer article which makes the connection to dictatorship explicit, but it's too general a target to be useful. The only mention of the term on Wikipedia is at Talk:Claremont Institute#Promotion of "Red Caesar" ideology where, citing an article in The Guardian dated four days prior to the Philadelphia Inquirer one (1 and 5 October 2023 respectively), an IP editor asked "Should we add the fact that the Claremont Institute has been promoting a "Red Caesar" ideology (i.e., a ruler who would nullify the U.S.'s traditional democratic norms)?" but got no reply. Both articles cite the Claremont Institute as the origin of the term and ideal. Given the number of search results the term gets we should probably have some content about it, but unless and until we do the redirect is not helpful so delete until some content is written. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly normal {{R from other disambiguation}}. We don't require readers to know our naming conventions before being able to find the article they want. In this case even if they do know that books are generally disambiguated by author they could use this search term if they don't know who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you actually object? Currently, the redirect Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel) is sitting in multiple categories, but really it should be the correctly disambiguated Empire of Death (Bishop novel) in these categories per WP:CONSISTENT. As there is a page history behind the redirected article, it would make sense for the article to be moved, rather than just de-populating the categories from one redirect and re-populating from another. --woodensuperman12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am objecting to is deletion of a redirect that is useful to readers. If you actually just want to swap the redirects then that's OK, but I admit to not understanding the point. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating removal of either redirect, both are valid. Just need to move the history to the correctly disambiguated one, and make sure the correctly disambiguated one is the one populating the categories. Should have been simple maintenance, but another editor objected for no apparent reason. --woodensuperman13:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the history at the current location. This is a book that originates from a television series, and thus conforms across multiple naming conventions. Per WP:NCEPISODE, which primarily focuses on episode and character articles, Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element). As per the example given, this covers all other elements; i.e. just how Serenity (Firefly episode) and Serenity (Firefly vessel) are disambiguated from each other using the same programme name, as are Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode) and Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel). Given that the article also doesn't actually exist due to the AFD related to it, note that the AFD related to the Doctor Who disambiguation, and thus the relevant history should remain at the Doctor Who disambiguation.
It is media from and related to a television series, thus it crosses multiple naming conventions; per the lead of NCTV, it covers the article title for any topic related to television. Ta. -- Alex_21TALK22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued my position, and will not go in our textbook circular discussions. We'll await the consensus of this discussion. Cheers. -- Alex_21TALK23:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently redirects to the dab page because two people named Lee Min-ho are singers: one is the member of Stray KidsLee Know and the other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. Which do you think is a more suitable target, Lee Know or the K-drama actor? ScarletViolet💬📝11:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is: Judging by the pageviews, Lee Min-ho is nearly 6 times more visited than Lee Know. However, it seems that Lee Min-ho is more known for being an actor than a singer, while Lee Know is primarily known for his K-Pop singing/dancing. Most readers would type Lee Min-ho (actor) instead of (singer). However, Lee Know is better known by his stage name than his real name. I think there is too much factors at play here to accurate judge the reader's intention, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It shouldn't be deleted per Wikipedia:INCOMPDAB, which says to redirect to the more general disamb page if there is no primary topic. Catalk to me!15:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per above. I don't think the standard for partial disambiguation should be as high as it is, but even by my standards there is no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The base name is a singer so shouldn't it redirect there if the South Korean singer has been deemed the primary topic for the base name? If there is no primary topic the DAB should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to Crouch, Swale's observation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!07:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think other editors are arguing that the title "Lee Min-ho" has no primary topic. Judging by the pageviews, and the fact that Lee Know are known better for his screen name make me to believe that the Lee Min-ho the actor is primary topic for the title "Lee Min-ho". The nominator has said other is a more prominent actor Lee Min-ho. What I think ambiguous in terms of primary topic is the title "Lee Min-ho" with (singer) attached to it, for reasons I mentioned above. Catalk to me!15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural renomination at the correct venue. Previously nominated at MfD by User:Intrisithere with rationale: Created out of an AFC script which I have no idea why. It doesn't seem to align with WP:RPURPOSE than its mainspace rdr counterpart which does the job anyway. Redundant redirect that must go!Nickps (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect currently points toward Akkadian - but there were many other languages spoken in Mesopotamia. There is also no individual article to retarget it to. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf. Thought for sure this was an obvious hoax/attack page, but no, it was a real thing. There is no mention of this on Wikipedia, though. CFA💬23:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of coverage justifies misleading people into thinking we have relevant content when we don't. The amount of coverage might justify adding content somewhere relevant, at which point we can consider the redirect, but unless and until that happens the redirect is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it sounds ridiculous, it probably is ridiculous, but it was a thing that Biden actually asserted multiple times. If someone has seen a clip of him saying it and wanted to find out more about it, searching "Joe Biden's uncle who got eaten by cannibals" is a pretty reasonable way of trying to find out more information about it. Now that it's included in the target article the redirect seems like a good one to me BugGhost🦗👻12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no subject mentioned in the target article as referred in the redirect's title (no 2018 film), leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to refer to. Looks like (maybe accidental) misinformation. If you look at the (now-blocked) creator's talk page history, you'll see they had a history of creating bad film redirects like this. The closest thing I could find is a documentary called Wolfman's Got Nards (2018) for which we do not have an article. CFA💬22:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sync all to Werewolf. The concept that the movie is based on is the primary topic, as already decided at Wolf man (disambiguation). I suppose you could make the argument that there is no primary topic, and that Wolf man should be the disambiguation page instead, but that should not be a discussion for RfD. CFA💬22:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: but that should not be a discussion for RfD - I've suggested this below because I think it's the correct course of action for these pages, and I've seen other RfD's suggest/implement similar moves without this causing any issue BugGhost🦗👻12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig (ie. move Wolf man (disambiguation) to Wolf man, then redirect all to Wolf man). I don't think targetting to Werewolf is completely wrong but it doesn't feel 100% correct either - in my view "Werewolf" refers to the species while topics that use the phrase "Wolf man" often are referring to particular individual werewolves (note how many versions of "The Wolfman" there are compared to just "Werewolf"). I don't think it's likely that someone searching for "wolf man" is looking for the general concept of werewolves, they are most likely looking for one of the many articles we have that have "Wolf Man" in the title. BugGhost🦗👻12:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia either. Third party search results primarily return results for a law firm. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not comfortable calling it a hoax (it could simply be an in-joke, simple vandalism, or a multitude of other things where there was no intent to deceive), but it certainly isn't a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the target article ... and I'm not sure if it should be or not. Per search engines, this word refers to a Romany word for the target. In addition, in the target page's talk page archives, Talk:Werewolf/Archive 1#Ruvaush refers to what this word possibly is/means. There may be value in adding this word back into the article somewhere, but I'm not even sure if the redirect refers to a similar-enough subject to the target, in addition to not being sure if the redirect has any WP:FORRED issues (but most likely not since it seems the concept of "werewolf" may have Romany roots.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent creation of the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, I'm not sure if the current target is the correct target anymore, specifically since an "attempt" could be a "threat" and the fact that "threats" in the nominated redirect's title is plural. My primary option here is "do not keep" with a preference towards "weak delete" if there is no strong stance between retargeting or disambiguating. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An obscure acronym that has no precedence on Wikipedia (see list of similar pages at Special:PrefixIndex/AAo) based on a naming convention established by Wikipedia that third party search engines think I'm trying to find "Aamodt" when searching this term; when I restrict the third party search results for only "AAoDT", the top results are for a company that does drug testing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because nothing else uses the acronym. It can be deleted or disambiguated in the future if the need arises. CFA💬20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it is made up, but it is particularly harmless because it is not used by anything else. And it is probably too long to reasonably refer to anything else. Pretty unambiguous in my opinion. CFA💬20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a term that is in use anywhere in relation to the target. Like the nom, my only hits relate to a non-notable drug testing company and then random product codes, "A minor angel. Enochian", procedurally generated URIs, and OCR errors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I have used this myself as a talk page abbreviation, it is not used anywhere in media sources. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear on the IAU list of named stars. A number of GHits, but I suspect they're all derived from our article. Tevildo (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to my knowledge, it only really ever pops up with this exact name in the rpgs (and the movie), and seems more closely associated with paper mario than mario & luigi. not sure if that warrants keeping, but i'll go with an overwhelmingly strong ehcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)13:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really matter. It could still be a reasonable search term even if it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Someone could type "Girl Toad" into the search bar. It has received 700 page views throughout its history, suggesting it has been used at least a few times. Regardless, redirects are cheap. No reason this should be deleted. CFA💬23:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it may be synthesis to a certain extent, but redirects are not required to be "correct" or neutral. If you google "girl toad", the first result is Toadette, indicating it is the correct target and a plausible search term. CFA💬23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were, but it still shows that it is a plausible search term. If you really think this is an issue, I would also support a disambiguation page with Toadette and Toad (frog). CFA💬23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think it's plausible search term for those who forgot the name Toadette. The title is capitalized (WP:DIFFCAPS), indicating a proper noun, and "girl" is an anthromorphic term. Wikipedia has no article on any fictional female toads. Catalk to me!15:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The need for this redirect seems unnecessary when the film its redirecting to doesn't even have "Mr. K." as an alternate title, it was just a working title at some poit. I propose deleting it as their is a new film with the actual title "Mr. K." premiering at TIFF soon that would make more sense to have the page title "Mr. K (film)" (link to film https://tiff.net/events/mr-k) Apologies if this isn't exactly right, this is my first time doing this TDFan1000 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this upcoming Mr. K should have its own article, you can be bold and create it yourself (though probably not now since you already started the discussion). Personally, I don't see a ton of coverage for it, and I'm not sure there's enough to justify an article (though I've never created a film article and I don't know what's typically expected for an upcoming film), but if you disagree then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else there is to do with this redirect. I agree that it would make more sense as an article for the upcoming movie, but only if it's right that that movie have one in the first place. Otherwise, I suppose retargeting to Mr. K, a dab page where I just added mentions of both films, would be sensible. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the page an article related to the 2024 film. I think there's enough info out there to justify creating it and obviously once the film is out there'll be more to add. Also, the film being selected to premiere at a well known film festival justifies it's creation enough, no? There's other film pages created based on less, I guess, but it makes sense to me to get rid of the original redirect and make the article about the 2024 film. Let me know if that's ok! TDFan1000 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Target page uses "auto blog" (with the space) once in the lead, unsourced (source in the sentence verifies "splog" but does not use "auto". Seems like this redirect (without the space) should be going to the publication mentioned in the hatnote, and perhaps some changes should be made to the spam blog page (or at least another source found for use of the term). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to deleting the redirect. It's been in place for years. As for the target page, it's using a lot of the terminology incorrectly and needs a lot of work. However, the usual "reliable sources" aren't reliable with respect to SEO terminology because there are no definitive sources of information on that terminology. An "auto blog" is not necessarily a spam blog. Not all spam blogs are auto blogs. Virtually no one in the industry uses "splog" and it was never a very popular term. It was used primarily here on Wikipedia. The word is found mostly in non-SEO glossaries and a few Web hosting companies' sites. They're either copying the Wikipedia definition or the original Wired article that introduced the term. I think this is why people like me mostly just watch the SEO pages for vandalism. They are at best borderline acceptable for Wikipedia inclusion. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reliable sources using the term. It should also be removed from the lead of the target. CFA💬20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: term is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I see too many varied usages in sources for it to be targeted to any specific one. This use case certainly isn't the first I would suggest. If they had to go anywhere, I would think Newtonian would make the most sense, but without the wider usage on site it feels like keeping them for the sake of keeping. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed that the Wikipedia page "Peter Selvaratnam" redirects to "Mandibular notch." I created the initial content for "Peter Selvaratnam" on June 24, 2024, and this redirection appears to have been set up on November 17, 2023, by the user Abishe.
I believe this redirection might be incorrect, as the content on "Peter Selvaratnam" is not related to "Mandibular notch." I would appreciate any input on whether this redirection was made in error or if there are specific reasons for it.
Additionally, if you have any suggestions on how to address this or how to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, please let me know.
Delete: Nonsensical redirect. Even if there is some correlation between the two pages, this would be a very WP:SURPRISING article to arrive at when searching for this person. CFA💬20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it (and the alternate "Wii-make") being used in some news coverage, most prominently "The Case for Wiimakes", but not nearly enough that it would demand usage in the target article or anything. Not sure it does any harm, but the use case seems limited as well. I guess I lean toward deletion, but not strongly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nintendo Wii and mention the phenomenon somewhere. It's an actual slang term formerly used for porting games to Wii while adding motion controls. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. Per the edit history of the redirect, seems the intent of this term was to correlate with the subject at Handheld game console. However, this term has been WP:SEO'ed on third party search engines to apparently establish that this phrase exclusively refers to Steam Deck. (This redirect is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deck-building game or maybe just Playing card (which is where Deck of cards also goes), or Card game. Googling "game deck" (including quotes) supports this. Steam deck doesn't refer to itself as a "game deck" (google results for "game deck" (no quotes) showing Steam Decks are just because the the Steam Deck plays/allows purchase of games. BugGhost🦗👻10:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section where this redirect targets is not currently in the target article. The target article does mention the word "demographics" 4 times, but it does not seem as though there is a proper location/section within the article to target this redirect. Also, leaving the redirect to target the base article title Video game could be unhelpful since readers would have to hunt down in various places what they are trying to find, and even then, they may not find what they are looking for. I'm thinking this redirect may be a WP:REDLINK deletion candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "type" is incredibly vague/ambiguous here. Is it meant to refer to genre (action, adventure, etc.), platform (PC, console, etc), medium (cartridge, CD, digital, etc.)? No idea. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Video game genre. Google searching "video game type" comes up with multiple of pages thinking you mean video game genre (without the "did you mean" hatnote!), and the two words are synonyms anyway. mwwvconverse∫edits23:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the target works with the significant home computer game history on the PC game article and is not comparable to the computer game redirect result. A disambiguation hatnote was added to the video game article by me, maybe add something similar to PC game? IgelRM (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect seems vague/unclear, specifically since the redirect uses the word "gamers" instead of "games", as well as the word "online". Between several topics including the current target, Multiplayer video game, Massively multiplayer online game, Gamer and/or subtopics, amongst others, it does not seem clear where this redirect should target, if anywhere. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't it be wacky if "land" was a common word in game boy game titles, "2" was a common number in game sequels, and there were at least 2 other games with both of them? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say disambig, but it's had 3 hits in the last year, and all the suggested contents (plus I-Land 2: N/a) don't actually go by the name "Land 2" - so delete looks like best option. BugGhost🦗👻10:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A priestess is a female priest, therefore the topic is clearly the covered by the article at priest. I've never heard the term used in connection with the origination of women, and would be frankly rather WP:ASTONISHed if the redirect went there. — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the other redirect Female priest in case we want to change it to Priest for consistency.
@Amakuru: You "never heard the term ... the origination of women, and ... WP:ASTONISHed"?
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud - if someone prepends "female" to this then the topic is most likely to refer to ordination of women — User:Amakuru15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what I've been attempting to accurately do.
Personal bias disclosed: I use the title. And it is legally valid in my region.
Whilst I am a minority to use it in my particular faith tradition, I know many other women in ministry of different faiths, who also sincerely use it for official purposes. As well
This has twice been deleted as an attack page, once by Liz and once by Isabelle Belato. While it does impute a motive to the gunman, it also strikes me as a plausible redirect. Hence my taking it here for further discussion as to a correct outcome. If deletion is decided to be appropriate I would suggest the page be salted. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatant" is quite the stretch here. It is a plausible search term. Who is it targeting as an attack page? CFA💬19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets this criterion as it is inherently negative and misleading. Redirects implying the death or assassination of a living person can have serious reputational impacts. In the case of a high-profile individual like Donald Trump, such implications can be considered defamatory and harmful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see who this disparages, at least in any way that the actual title of the page it redirects to does. Indeed, it grants the perpetrator a success that the directed page doesn't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that is a disparagement. An inaccuracy, yes, but it says nothing about his character, and if followed, the situation is quickly revealed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the redirect does not disparage character, its misleading nature and potential to cause harm align with the reasons for which similar pages have been deleted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert who is the living person being attacked? Can you explain a bit further how they're being attacked? I'm entirely willing to admit I might be missing something (and indeed did a sanity check before declining and bringing it here given that two admins I respect had already deleted it as G10). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a responsibility to present accurate and neutral information. A title like this fails to meet these standards by presenting a false and sensational version of events. Two respected administrators have already deemed the redirect a violation, indicating a consensus that it constitutes an attack page. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also someone who regularly patrols and deletes G10s and so knowing what the community consensus was felt like an appropriate step to take. For me, it seems like WP:RNEUTRAL would allow this title to me if it wasn't a BLP violation. So far it's not clear how Trump is harmed by someone saying he was assassination any more than Obama is harmed by the listed example around his being a Muslim in our redirect guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not a direct attack, implying false events about living persons can contribute to defamation and misinformation. The potential harm is in the misinformation and the sensational nature of the title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests that an assassination occurred, which is not true, creating an initial impression that can confuse readers before they even reach the accurate target article. This misinformation arises from the misleading nature of the redirect itself, causing unnecessary alarm. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big exaggeration. It is not going to confuse or alarm anyone. If they visit the redirect, they will be sent to the appropriate page which clarifies what actually happened. CFA💬23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People might see the redirect title in search results or links without visiting the page, leading to the spread of the misinformation that his assassination took place. The mere existence of such a redirect title can propagate false information. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it falls under G10 (Assassinate Donald Trump would be a blatant G10 violation, not sure about this title), but it is very misleading and inaccurate, does not seem to fall under WP:RPURPOSE, and does appear to fail WP:R#DELETE #2... as Neveselbert already said, it is as plausible of a search term for the event in question as Killing of Donald Trump or Death of Donald Trump... he was not assassinated, no one that has heard anything about the event is going to think he was assassinated, thus no one is likely to be searching for the Assassination of Donald Trump... and I think I also agree with it being SALTed, until (if) it is ever a true statement, at which point we would obviously need to create a new article using this title... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an attack page. Valid member of Category:Redirects from incorrect names. Falls under WP:PURPOSE: Serve content to readers matching their query. We know what topic they want to read an article on, so we serve them that article. That is the purpose. They misidenfied the nature of the thing or used imprecise words to refer to the thing—they land at the correctly titled article about the thing where they can get knowledge. What else is the purpose?—Alalch E.21:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About WP:R#D2: That's for redirects that can cause confusion in the scenario that the wrong idea about what something is persists or is reinforced after reading the title of the page you land on and its first sentence as well, at least. Here, there is no such confusion, because if someone thinks that Trump was killed (esoteric scenario) they will be told in the first sentence that he survived, and "Attempted assassination" is clear enough in itself. If someone was to use imprecise words, failing to distinguish between an assassination and an attempted assassination, while knowing that Trump was not killed in the event (the actual, real, scenario), there would be no confusion to begin with. So that reason to delete a redirect does not apply. It's for more ambiguous cases where the redirect title denotes an incorrect idea that can plausibly get reinforced after arriving at the page, because the start of the page does not directly contradict and dispel the idea. —Alalch E.22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very plausible search term, not at all an attack page unless I'm missing some article history in the deleted versions. I don't think people will always slide in "attempted" when searching for events. We have the 2024 Bolivian coup redirect as a recent example. CMD (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible search term. To get things out of the way, it did not meet G10 as it does not disparage Donald Trump, nor is it defamatory, so I don't understand how it was deleted twice by different administrators as that. Also, to imply that this title is somehow equivalent to "Attempted of Donald Trump" is highly inappropriate – that title would not make grammatical sense and would not be a plausible search term. (As a full disclosure, I found out about the G10s from an off-wiki discussion; I was not asked to vote one way or the other and I wasn't selectively notified). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly a plausible search term and not even close to being a G10 candidate and I'm shocked that two experienced administrators would think otherwise. In addition to the points made above it's plausible for a non-native speaker not to realise that "assassination" refers specifically to an event that resulted in the targetted person's death rather than an attempt whether successful or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep agree with Thryduulf its not a G10 and that people might not now that the intended victim survived so while its arguably inaccurate its not completely as it was still an attempt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump, being declared dead. He's sued for less, not that I expect him to be reading WP redirects or WP. Alternative titles would be "feline" and "cat" but only Schrodinger's cat can be both alive and dead. "Assassination" is not another term for "attempted assassination", it's another term for killing or murder. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖20:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people on the list are dead now, so they're past feeling anything, and I wouldn't worry about complaints from people who faked their own deaths, such as the fugitive sex offender under 'A'. Maybe I should switch my comment to "keep" since Trump's description of the aftermath has a distinct biblical Easter vibe (When I rose surrounded by Secret Service, the crowd was confused because they thought I was dead. And there was great, great sorrow) — nah. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖12:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plausible search term. I don't see this as eligible for G10 and I don't agree that the existence of the redirect means, in any way, that Wikipedia is saying the assassination was successful. For those who think there was an "assassination of Donald Trump," the redirect to the article about the attempted assassination will educate them. Misleading and inaccurate redirect titles that redirect the reader to accurate articles are helpful. It's just like "Trump assassination" or other variations. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be deleted then nominate it, but I will recommend keeping that for exactly the same reasons as I am recommending keeping this one - it's useful and not at harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deliberately searched this, expecting a redirect, because I didn't want to bother adding "attempted". A redirect can be inaccurate (e.g. any {{r from misspelling}} and still be a useful search term Mach6115:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indeed an incorrect title. But {{r from incorrect name}} does exist, and it exists precisely for the sorts of situations where a reasonable search term is factually incorrect. I have myself searched this in the searchbar, expecting it to come to the page on the attempted assassination, and was brought here as a result; the redirect is clearly useful. I also do not see how this is an attack page. I simply do not think it can reasonably read to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass any particular person—the application of the {{r from incorrect name}} tag makes this all quite clear—and the usefulness for search renders the idea that the redirect serve no other purpose than disparagement, threat, intimidation, or harassment to be untenable. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)01:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy. This whole region is very complicated dialectally and in terms of terminology, and so things had to change. Vininn126 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe it is referring to the cross on the flag. See the infobox ("Cross of Resistance flag of the Lebanese Forces militia, adopted in 1984"). Probably rarely used but no harm in keeping it. CFA💬19:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If someone is looking for encyclopaedic information about this subject this is a very likely search term for them to use. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) I'm fine with any option, lean on keep current redirect. For context, the option CFA suggests was the redirect target until Biden actually withdrew. I thought it would be a good idea to redirect the calls to withdraw to the final result of the withdrawal. Personally, I think the content about the calls leading up to Biden's withdrawal should also be on the page about the final result. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add special Rcat. Catching the opposite of something is a valid reason to create a redirect pointing to the opposite of the redirect (for as long as we don't have an article about it specifically). However, we usually tag such redirects with {{R from opposite}} to improve reverse loopup capabilities, and this is what we should do here as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
things named "power flower" have been in three mario games so far (though they're all different things), and none of them seem to be the primary target for the term cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak refine to the "Standing down" section where it gets explained the most. There are a few hits dotted around the web as a by-election was expected. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an article I could support moving but only retaining a redirect, as a redirect I can only oppose. The current title is the plausible search term, given that's how UK by-election articles are titled. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not it's not fictional. It was an expected event that ended up not happening because it turned out to be a rare exception to the norm of by-elections happening within ~four months of a vacancy arising. Given that norm and the rarity of exceptions, it is very plausible for someone seeing the MP for North West Leicestershire died in late December 2009 to expect there to have been a by-election in the constituency in the first quarter of 2010. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ultimately fictional, as it never happened and can never happen, as it's no longer 2010. Like I said, the redirect can be moved to serve the same purpose. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI formal preparations can only start once the writ for the election has been issued (which it never was), but it is very likely that at least some informal ones were. Given that those same preparations would have just become preparations for the general election when that was called, and most of them wouldn't have been newsworthy I'm not sure how you'd go about ascertaining, especially at this distance. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The by-election should have been within four months after vacating the seat, if I read it correct. That would bring the by-election to the end of April 2010 (roughly). That makes it more than likely that the by-election was effectively cancelled due to the upcoming general election. So in my opinion, it makes sense to retarget to 2010 United Kingdom general electionThe Bannertalk18:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬17:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised to see this term has a clear primary topic - Sonic Adventure. Normally that would result in a recommendation to retarget, but the phrase is not mentioned in that article or anywhere else in article space (other than two passing mentions that would not make a good target). Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I don't understand. Should it be every time an editor/IP editor creates a "cheap" rdr to half-/full-capitalized link like this? Intrisit (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. @Intrisit: if someone creates a redirect from a plausible capitalisation then that is a good indication that they find it useful, which is a good reason for the redirect to exist. Redirects are cheap, and that means that they should not normally be deleted unless they are specifically harmful in some way - and a nomination for deletion needs to express that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not the biggest volcano nerd out there, so sorry in advance for any uninformed claims, but from reading the target and other related articles, there seem to be no other celestial bodies that meet the criteria of being a "world", currently having volcanic activity, and being in the solar system, though mercury is a strong "maybe". on another note, i'm not entirely sure "active world" is a term used to refer to volcanic activity, and the creator of the redirect (who seems to have made it as an essay) seemed to have also been referring to geysers, and counting moons as "worlds". for results. wikipedia gave me an mmo (shoutouts to hitomi fujiko), google gave me assorted apps and brands, and wiktionary gave me nothing. unless there's a detail i'm missing or this is a scientific term that refers to celestial bodies with volcanic activity, i'll vote for deletion cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better redirect at this time as is this not a redirect with potential.?
Jury is out on definition of volcano as noted in the article itself and presumably meaning of world. Planet and moon are more accurate terms. Many "worlds" are active in some way as they are above absolute zero and may have internal or external entropy sources that disturb their surface however that is defined. Someone could get a good article out of this so my vote is to retain in hope someone will do the job, unless there is a better redirect. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Active worlds" is too ambiguous to justify keeping "Active worlds in the Solar System" as a redirect to Volcano#Volcanoes on other celestial bodies. I also have not found any other suitable redirect targets because the problem is the lack of meaning in the redirect's title rather than a problem with any targets of the redirect. I recommend delete. GeoWriter (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading. Vance is currently not the Vice President nor has he ever been the Vice President. Pages like this for candidates who have been VP were not created until after the election. Wozal (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are not required to be neutral (WP:RNEUTRAL) and the article explains that he is a nominee in the first sentence. This redirects helps confused readers get correct information. Catalk to me!16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Are you reading a different WP:RNEUTRAL than I am? In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. There are no sources to verify the name "Vice President Vance", and none are likely to be proffered. 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. Here again, WP:RNEUTRAL makes it clear that an established term that is used in WP:RS are what should be an exception and kept, not made-up terms that aren't sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c02:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News: What do political strategists think of a Vice President Vance?
A lot of popular news media use "Vice President Vance" as a term for a hypothetical future where Trump and Vance wins. Readers may see these terms and search it up on Wikipedia, neglecting to add "nominee". It is not misleading since the article target corrects the mistake, in the off-chance that the mistaken reader (probably non-American who never heard about this person) genuinely thinks Vance is the current Vice President. Catalk to me!06:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's my fault for not being specific enough, but sources that speak of a hypothetical name aren't really sufficient to justify this. This term isn't "established" as all uses are either direct quotations of politicians hoping for this or indirect uses just using the term as a "what-if" title. And to some extent WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here, obviously. —Locke Cole • t • c05:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand the vague references to CRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia aren't claiming any predictions by having a incorrect or hypothetical future search term lead an article that has the correct context.
I see readers using this redirect for two reasons:
1) Clueless readers thinking Vance is really the vice president due to being unfamiliar with US politics or being misled by headlines like "What do political strategists think of a Vice President Vance?".
2) Those who know Vance is a nominee, but still neglected to add it as a keyword since it is longer.
Weak DABify - This is the title of the first episode of The Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonald, and also for the movie Open Season: Scared Silly. I'm uncertain if the Open Season movie is the WP:PTOPIC for the phrase "Scared Silly" specifically, and google shows that it's the title of more things as well, such as a children's novel by Elizabeth Eulberg (no wiki-page), a picture book by Marc Brown (author) (very famous author), a stage play by Peter Bloedel (probably not notable), and likely many more... as this is a common English expression as well! Google does show the movie a bit more prominently than the other entries, mind you, so the PTOPIC argument can certainly be made, but that's why my DABify !vote is weak. Although I will say, if a PTOPIC is established, a disambiguation page should probably be made alongside it and hatnoted. Fieari (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping under the idea that they might make a game with that title is pointless WP:CRYSTAL-gazing, and unfounded to boot. As it stands now, we have no information at all regarding Bowser's inclusion in the Paper Mario series, nor any other place where something might be known as 'Paper Bowser'. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We lack information on this topic, and shouldn't claim we have it when we don't. Sometimes the mere existence of a redirect can be informative even without a mention, but this is not one of those cases. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. There is some content in that article on Paper Bowser (as an independent character to boot, not just "mainstream Bowser in a paper art style"!). AFAIK Paper Jam is the only game where Paper Bowser is a character in his own right, making that game a possible target. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For opinion on the retarget suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬15:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Mellohi! above. Seems like a reasonable target and the character is mentioned in the article. CFA💬19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rosguill saw no worth in having content for this title out of GNG concerns, I've listed it here for a possible deletion. Intrisit (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is to check the last two log screens of this page's page history and understand why I nominated this. Intrisit (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Readers may believe there be multiple publication with the name "The Economic Times", and add a natural-looking disambiguator (India) to disambiguate it. Seems clear and useful to me. Catalk to me!16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all-star batman and robin is a different goddamn comic from all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder, but its only meaningful goddamn mention is in the goddamn list of batman comics, and the goddamn results seem to give goddamn priority to all star batman & robin, the goddamn boy wonder. should they be goddamn retargeted to the goddamn list of batman comics, or are they goddamn fine as is? cogsan(goddamn talk page)(goddamn contribs)13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. Even if this wasn't a {{R from move}} it would be a plausible search term for someone who knows one album exists but doesn't know about the other. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect points to the M4 article, because the Leica MD-2 is a simplified derivative of the Leica M4-2. I have added a sentence about it including a reference to the article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is far too vague. I actually think the reader is better served by not cluttering the Search tool with a potentially confusing redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for trailing full stop. From Search, the slogan (or rather press release headline) appears to have been "Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as this is the product's slogan. Even if "Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone" is the full phrase, strictly speaking, "Apple reinvents the phone" is the concise form which became arguably more popular, and which also gets many search hits. As can be seen from the edit summary, the user who requested the deletion has withdrawn the application anyway.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as slogans are valid encyclopedic entries for historically interested people. We usually link to the corresponding product or company, tagging the redirect with {{R from slogan}}, unless the slogan became so commonly known that we have a dedicated article about it. (Not an iPhone fan at all, but anyway.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the full slogan, there's the malformed period at the end, it includes the company name (so at best only marginally useful for "hey, I remember that slogan, but not what it's about, let's ask Wikipedia"), and it's not targeted at "an article or section of an article about the slogan" like {{R from slogan}} says it is. Too many things wrong here. Search is sufficient; it'll find the mention in IPhone (1st generation)'s infobox without this redirect's help. Delete. —Cryptic16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these redirects are used. "Unreal Engine Technology" is not a typical redirect. Neither is Draft:Vengeance Engine, which makes no sense at all. We should use WP:COMMONNAME, not Unreal Engine technology or Unreal Engine Technology. We should not use misspelled links links like "Unreal engine" or UnrealEngine. "Unreal Engine (game engine)" does not make any sense as there is no other unreal engine to disambiguate it with. It also leads to editors actually using this awful redirects. For example see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mare_Nostrum_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1235798234 which was using [[Unreal Engine technology#Unreal Engine 2.5|Unreal Engine 2.5]] instead of just [[Unreal Engine 2.5]](Unreal Engine 2.5). why should we support this kind of usage? What benefit is there to having all these inaccurate redirects? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:RFD#DELETE, some of these fall under "The redirect might cause confusion." Specifically Unreal Engine Technology, Unreal Engine technology and Unreal technology which are not WP:COMMONNAME and are not terms I have seen any RS or Unreal Engine itself use to describe Unreal Engine. Additionally Draft:Vengeance Engine is misleading at best as it is not a real engine. UnrealEngine is also misleading as one might think that is how it is spelled, and to a lesser extent Unreal engine as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>a court found that [[Silicon Knights]] had plagiarized [[Epic Games]]' proprietary [[Unreal Engine|Unreal engine]].
If editors are purposefully changing Unreal Engine to Unreal engine (incorrect), then we should definitely not support that usage with a redirect as it will further this inaccurate usage. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2UDY7r00CRjH: I'd encourage you to have a look at WP:RPURPOSE. You've made a pretty convincing argument for keeping several of these redirects here above. WP:CNAME applies to articles themselves, not redirects, and the fact that people are using several of these terms, even if they are incorrect, is reason to keep the redirects as they are useful, not to delete them. I see four groups in the list presented:
Unreal Engine (game engine) is an unlikely search term given the paranthetical disambiguation, but I'm not sure we should delete it as per Jruderman's third comment. I'll withhold judgement here.
Draft:Vengeance Engine should be deleted, it's a cross namespace redirect. It should be noted that the articlespace version is a redirect to Irrational Games. A Google search says that the Vengeance Engine is a derivative of UE2 that was created by Irrational. If for some reason we are keep it, I would suggest a retarget to the Unreal Engine 2 article specifically.
This is my first time in the redirects forum and you're right, being a new contributor, I'm not familiar with a lot of the rules. In fact, I initially just blanked these pages and asked someone to delete the page in the comment history, which I now understand is not allowed. Reading these rules, I take issue with some of them. I wouldn't call any of these alternative capitalizations: they are typos. And I don't see why we should make redirects for every typo. That implies that every page should have a redirect with various capitalizations of the entry name. If nobody is using these redirects then I don't see a need for them to fix non existing typos. In any case I think it is better to have a redlink than have a typo because 1. someone will see the red link and fix it 2. Some people will see the blue link with a typo and think it is correct. This is in line with the reasoning given here: "The redirect might cause confusion." Also, I disagree that Unreal technology, Unreal Engine Technology, and Unreal Engine technology are plausible search terms. Looking at Google Trends, it doesn't seem anyone is using these search terms. I'm not aware of any such term being used by reliable sources or unreal itself or really anyone at all using it. I certainly don't see why we need a redirect for a misspelling of a possible search term for this page. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line between {{R from alternative capitalization}} and {{R from incorrect capitalization}} can be blurry sometimes. In "Epic Games' proprietary Unreal engine", perhaps the author is treating "Unreal" as a name and "engine" as a generic noun. But the distinction doesn't really matter at RfD because the reasons for having the redirect are similar: helping users reach the article they intend to reach. Jruderman (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh on Draft:Vengeance Engine as drafts aren't indexed by search engines and it isn't in mainspace, don't care either way (side note: Vengeance Engine and Vengeance engine currently go different places which certainly shouldn't be the case), as well as Unreal Engine (game engine) as typically redirects from unnecessary disambiguation pages have a base title that could reasonably refer to more than one thing but the redirect certainly isn't harmful. Keep the rest as either alternative capitalizations or reasonable search terms. Tollens (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good gods we have a mess with Vengeance Engine, don't we? Three redirects including the draftspace one, all of which go to different (and yet still plausible) targets. I think we need to have a separate discussion about how to clean it up, but I think I'll wait until this RfD is closed, at least as concerns the draftspace redirect. A read over the Vengeance engine target, Ghost Story Games, indicates that it's a continuation/successor to the Irrational Games target of Vengeance Engine, plus we have the section at Unreal Engine#Unreal Engine 2 and the split article Unreal Engine 2 all as candidates. Hamtechperson17:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This appears to be the original title of the template it points to. I presume the women's event was started in 2020 or not covered until then. Template shortcuts are very often ambiguous. As they are for editors (not readers), this does little harm. Weak because I am sympathetic to the nominators point. If this were in the mainspace a disambiguation would very much be due; however, such an action is not appropriate for a template redirect and I do not support deletion (because ambiguity is not grounds to delete a shortcut). There is also no benefit of obscuring the page history through deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT)05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be deleted as non-neutral and poorly matched. While "tax cuts for the rich" are sometimes promoted as a method of trickle-down economics, they really aren't the same concept. Redirecting to tax cut does not make a lot of sense either. Jruderman (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's neutral (and even if it wasn't, redirects don't have to be neutral) and summarises the article's lead well: Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and Major examples of what critics have called "trickle-down economics" in the U.S. include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Major UK examples include Liz Truss's mini-budget tax cuts of 2022. The article describes the topic as primarily tax cuts for rich people - it's a good redirect. BugGhost🦗👻10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trickle-down economics is not the exact same thing as tax cuts for the wealthy. Should be deleted as forcing readers to follow a redirect to an irrelevant place, WP:SURPRISE applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these clearly refer to the United States, and don't make sense redirecting to a US-centric article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of these concepts are necessarily US-exclusive, and even then, a lot of these redirects sound like they have a level of bias. Best to delete them all. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not redirect a disambiguation page. This redirect has a complicated page history and might have attribution issues, and is therefore not eligible for WP:G14. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target, nor any other article as far as I can tell, and I can't seem to find anything online indicating that this exists. Tollens (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not mentioned in the target, and it doesn't refer to the target, the title sounds like something straight out of a horror film. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I get what the creator was referring to when creating this redirect ... toy models of roller coasters. However, the phrasing of this redirect does not make that clear, considering that the word "toy" is nowhere in this redirect and the word Coaster is ambiguous. (In fact, Coaster makes it seem this redirect could refer to toy models of train track configurations?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too overly vague - let the search function do its job instead of arbitrarily assuming people want X or Y. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About a day or so ago, sort of as a temporary measure until I could figure out a better course of action with this redirect, I had refined this redirect to Toy#Gender from Toy due to believing the base title not being adequate for explaining this redirect. However, I just realized that due to the fact the word "games" is in this redirect, the redirect's title seems to be an incorrect connection to its target due to potential WP:XY issues since the target is about toys and not games. At this point, I'm thinking deletion is the best option. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out writting such a wrapper is as easy as copying {{db-empty}} and changing a few lines. I've already done it, so all that is needed now is to remove the redirect. Nickps (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree its ambiguous due and I'd argue C1 is more likely as a category would be more likely to be considered to be empty because although its now possible to create an empty page (it never used to be) I wouldn't expect many articles to be created that are completely empty and blanking is often done when G7 ends up being the criteria used to delete. I'd also note that Template:Empty redirects to Template:Db-empty so I'd consider deleting them both. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your comment again, I hadn't thought of the G7 point. I guess there is an argument to be made for deletion but considering that {{db-empty}} is probably associated with A3 and C1, I'd be very hesitant to delete. Nickps (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Template shortcuts are quite often ambiguous. Created in 2006, then redirected here in 2012. It is included as a link in {{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}} (which is transcluded to many user pages). No need to take any action. Shortcuts have to be learned before use anyhow, and this only affects our editors (not our readers). Prefer a retarget over deletion (if it comes to that). — Godsy (TALKCONT)10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convenced by this argument. It's alao confusing for editors to have db-empty refer to C1 and A3 but db-empty-notice refer to A1. Every other notice template is named after the CSD template it is used with but this one alone breaks the pattern. That still makes shortcuts more difficult to learn for our editors for no benefit since most of them would know that db-a1-notice is the notice to use along with db-a1. Nickps (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Waiting for someone to add mention to the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 09:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These terms referred to a section that was removed in April and had been tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. - Eureka Lott16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cassette futurism returns many results on Google, for example [13], and [14]. And besides, it looks like the target text has been restored, complete with references. The nowardays widely accepted term for this period of retro-futurism is most commonly referred to as Cassette Futurism, but the term Formicapunk has also been used (but it is not as widely used as Cassette Futurism). Formicapunk was used in the webcomic Bouletcorp by John Boulet. The original link is http://web.archive.org/web/20230623104540/https://bouletcorp.com/2011/07/07/formicapunk/ (this is an Internet archive version as the current URL doesn't work), but even so, google still brings up links to other pages that use that term. So I suspect that there are still some people out there who are aware of the term Formicapunk but not the term Cassette Fururism. But even so, I'd definitely keep the redirect for Cassette futurism, but I'm not so sure if Bouletcorp's Formicapunk cartoon is notable enough even though the term Formicapunk has taken a life of it's own. Ae-a (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Per WP:NEO. Seems to be an invention of TVTropes editors, and Wikipedia is not TVTropes. 80s-punk is undoubtedly a thing, but it's cited to Wikis and unreliable sources in an attempt to make the section appear merited. Until someone can come up with an actual source, it shouldn't be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I agree with this assessment. The redirects should be deleted and the reintroduction of the material should be reverted due to a lack of WP:RS. - Eureka Lott21:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was reverted into a redirect is because it was completely unsourced. It should only return to being an article if reliable sources relating to it show that it is noteworthy enough to include on Wikipedia. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply the result of an error I made briefly over a little over 20 years ago. Seems entirely reasonable to delete. Morwen (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the internet hits for "Bolover borough" and "Borough of Bolsover" this is a common enough error to merit a {{R from incorrect name}} redirect. See e.g page 11 of this PDF where the local Conservative Party calls it "Borough of Bolsover". We educate people making this sort of mistake by taking them to the content they are looking for that explains the correct situation rather than making them jump through hoops to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an attested error that someone might search. The existence of the redirect will correct them effectively enough. Fieari (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about this one. The subject exists (per third party searches) and is linked at List of Netflix original films (2020) in the list of film released that year. But ... the fact that this title is a redirect and not an article seems to validate WP:REDYES deletion. In addition, the article for the group mentioned in the title of his redirect, Bigflo & Oli, seems to make no mention or reference of the subject of this redirect anywhere in that article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another story which Netflix bought the rights in 2019 to create a film, but nothing came out of it since. The base title Running with Sherman is a redirect that targets Christopher McDougall#Works (after I retargeted it last month), the article about the author of the "Running with Sherman" story, but that article contains no information about a film adaptation of the "Running with Sherman" story. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this was a story which Netflix bought the rights in 2019 with the intent to make a film, but it does not seem as though the film ever went into production. Also, it seems the film was to star Brie Larson; online searches for the "Lady Business" turn up nothing at the present time 5 years later ... well, while also distinguishing that the "Lady Business" film is a subject separate from Unicorn Store. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For some reason, this abbreviation makes me think of the ship in Red, Blue, and Yellow (probably because of the use of "SS"). Probably best to just delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wanted to argue that they were development names, fan speculation, or something, but that doesn't seem to be the case. best case scenario, they were the names of rom hacks or bootlegs, but i only found deviantart ocs cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create disambiguation page there are several Galars that are pretty notable subjects (The main location of a high selling videogame, a figure in Norse mythology, a town in Spain, a village in Wales, and apparently a redirect at Bahnar language) All of these are pretty important subjects, and I can't see which one would be the primary topic. I feel a DAB page would very much be helpful here given the number of things that have the name Galar. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
extremely vague. requires that "pokémon" and "incident" be defined in a way that somehow narrows it down to only this particular episode of the anime generation that also featured jynx and hypno, while excluding every other controversy the franchise has seen cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too vague. When seeing the title I assumed it was some sort of (political) scandal or other real-world incident related to Pokémon in some way. A politician making a gaffe and exposing their ignorance while trying to appear to be a "man of the people" or something like that would have been my first guess. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It certainly was a "pokémon incident", probably the biggest one, but it doesn't really go by the name "pokémon incident". Googling "pokémon incident" does lead to lots of reference to this event, but also to other unrelated events. It could also reasonably relate to Pokémon Go to the polls, which is pretty much exactly the hypothetical poltician gaffe scenario that @Thryduulf: dreamt up (see this and this for more details). BugGhost🦗👻12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, i'm gonna change my vote to a strong listify (preferrably with a different name), since there's also the 80 quadrillion times the franchise was accused of being satanic, and the 0 times it was accused of being satanic because of giratinacogsan(nag me)(stalk me)14:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a CNR to WP:BLP. All of the 304 links to this redirect are in reference to the Wikipedia policy, rather than the Biography article. It seems unlikely that anyone searching for this would be looking for the encyclopedic article, especially considering the term is never mentioned. It was retarted to Biography from a CNR in 2009. CFA💬18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (or add encyclopaedic content) This is a very high profile policy that does get referenced frequently off-site so I'm surprised we don't have some encyclopaedic content about it that could host a hatnote to the policy, although finding sources will be tricky due to the large number of Wikipedia mirrors and many other sites that have policies/guidelines with the same title. If we don't have encyclopaedic content then a cross-namespace redirect is the way to go - this is something that needs to be very easy to find, particularly by prospective editors and article subjects who shouldn't have to learn about namespaces first. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if there would be enough coverage to write a separate article on the policy. I found it surprising that even the Policies and content section in the main Wikipedia article only briefly mentioned the policy (in reference to the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident). If someone is willing to do that and they can find enough coverage, then that (with a hatnote) would be my preferred outcome over retargeting. CFA💬21:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really a Wikipedia specific term but all Google results are for the policy. Maybe it should be kept as with a link on the DAB page to the BLP policy as well as the current MOS page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was considering doing before listing it here, but I decided against it. Do you really think anyone typing "Biographies of living persons" into the search bar is looking for Biography? It is obviously directly referencing the policy and the term isn't even mentioned in the article. CFA💬03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an alternative article space target is found. Biographies are about people, but not all biographies are about living people. (And, morbidly enough, all biographies in existence today will eventually all not be about living people...) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched around a bit, and I do not think there is enough in the way of external sources covering this to support an article. Perhaps an article could be written on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with a section on BLP. BD2412T23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no justification for a WP:CNR: "most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, ... very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links" (not inter-Wikipedia links). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's the "doot" meme. doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling of "skeletal" otherwise, as e is just close enough to t where it'd be hard to forget to type one letter cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skeltal is a variant name of a popular internet meme [15]. Our article on skeleton lack information about this meme, neither do any other article. The intro of WP:REDIRECT, a guideline says Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read. A generic article about skeletons are not what readers would want to see when they are searching about a meme. Catalk to me!05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty obscure. I doubt there's enough coverage to write an article on it, but I suppose someone could try. I imagine most people searching "Skeltal" on Wikipedia are looking for "Skeletal," which is also a redirect to Skeleton. CFA💬15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible misspelling. Our search function automatically handles different capitalizations. I tend to agree that effort of listing redirects with minor errors can be used elsewhere, but we might as well delete them as they are listed to reduce maintance work for useless redirects. Catalk to me!05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly unlikely someone is going to capitalize the "i" in "Piece" but not the "n" in "One". In addition, this redirect should not be linked in articles. Also, if this redirect is deleted, trying to search "One PIece" in Wikipedia's search function will return One Piece. Deletion of this redirect seems to have more benefits than harm. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect should replace the target article so it uses title-case spelling. Article is about a specific proprietary system, not the general concept; the sentence-case spelling can redirect to Warehouse management system, which is the general concept. Tule-hog (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's if you ignore the fact that smash for 3ds and that other console are both commonly referred to as "sm4sh", and clumped together as two different flavors of the same installment by pretty much everyone less pedantic than me. ironically, nintendo considers them to be separate, but even the article reduces that to note c, accompanied by "but who cares about those guys, most sources say they're both smash 4" cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that changes that its a plausible search term, with sourcing and notes to clear up confusion. Again, I'm not saying its the sixth title. I'm not arguing anyone should think that. I'm saying its a plausible redirect because some people think that, and some sources outline it. Sergecross73msg me13:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target does not state that it is the sixth entry in the series instead of the fifth. This redirect will be misleading when a sixth Super Smash Bros. game is released. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced mention of how some consider it the sixth entry could be very easily implemented. Additionally, there's no need to right now future-proof the article for a future game that hasn't even been announced to exist yet. Sergecross73msg me23:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People searching for Super Smash Bros. 6 are most likely looking for information on a successor of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. No information on such game exists in the target article, or for that matter, anywhere on Wikipedia, so the redirect is harmful and should be deleted per WP:COSTLY. Mia Mahey (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that notion. Why would people be searching for an unannounced game that currently isn't know to exist with this search term? And if someone was knowledgeable enough to use a relatively rare search term like "Smash Bros 6" in a search bar, they'd be knowledgeable enough to understand what Smash Bros Ultimate is. So your confusion scenario feels rather far fetched to me, I don't know what sort of person this would apply to. Doubly so since I've maintained the Ultimate page since its inception and thus has not been a common issue. Sergecross73msg me02:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. There's never been any discussion or consensus that Mario Kart is handling it correctly either, so it's no standard to aspire to. It's just an WP:OSE-violating comparison. Sergecross73msg me13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Super Smash Bros for 3DS and Super Smash Bros for Wii U are both Smash 4, and neither are Smash 5. They did release on separate days, with Wii U being released after 3DS, but they were released literally two months apart, were clearly developed together, and they have several methods of transferring data between the two platforms; it's highly probable that they only released separately due to delays. They also share a Wikipedia page, shared advertising space, pretty much everywhere you go they're talked about as one unit instead of two separate games-- much like, for example, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team, another instance of one game with two names on two different Nintendo consoles with different capabilities. (If you throw out the 'two different consoles' thing, pretty much any first-of-the-gen Pokemon game in the history of ever, from Pokemon Red and Blue all the way to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet are examples of this in action. (Like, what, are you saying that Pokémon Emerald is Pokemon 13 or something???) Because of this, Smash Ultimate is clearly Smash 5, and thus, Smash 6 would logically be the next entry of the series after Smash Ultimate, a game that does not exist. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, let's make it worse
red + green (jp) > blue (jp) > stadium (jp) > yellow > red + blue (not jp) > hey you, pikachu > tcg (game boy) > snap > pinball > "stadium" (actually stadium 2) > gold + silver > dance! pikachu > puzzle challenge > puzzle league > "stadium 2" (actually stadium gold and silver) > crystal > pikachu's great surfing adventure > tcg 2 > crayon kids > party mini > zany cards > pinball mini > puzzle collection > tetris > breeder mini (wait what) > puzzle collection vol. 2 > race mini > catch the numbers > pichu bros. mini > togepi's great adventure > ruby + sapphire > box r&s > channel > pinball r&s > channel > pinball r&s > some hiragana and katakana education game > colosseum > firered + leafgreen > pico for everyone > emerald
Again, you're both arguing what's "correct" instead of arguing what's plausible. Whether it's the correct numbering is irrelevant. Some people (not me) believe it to be true, and the alternative is a game that doesn't even exist. We don't need to future proof for scenarios that may not ever even happen. It can be easily and quickly fixed as things potentially change someday. Sergecross73msg me00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - only mention of "Smash Bros. 6" on Wikipedia is from that article, talking about a Bandai Namco recruitment page stating: The recruitment page consisted of a listing for programmers for "Smash Bros. 6", which was expected to be released in 2015 for both the Wii U and Nintendo 3DS", which is likely why the redirect exists in the first place. It being mentioned there is just a happy coincidence though - the main reason why I am saying it should go to Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate rather than Super Smash Bros. Ultimate directly is because the lengthy discussions above shows that there is ambiguity that SB6 would refer to Ultimate or some future/non-existent game, and Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is directly above a "Future" section, so this redirect would cover both bases. As an aside, I don't think the above discussions need to be continued - regardless of anyone's views, I think the outcome is obvious that there's no clear primary topic - we now just need to find the best way of disambiguating. BugGhost🪲👻08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with the other two redirects as suggested above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the SSB redirects, Keep "Super Smash Bros. 6". From the above discussion, it appears that "Smash Bros. 6" has been used to refer to "Ultimate", and it's a plausible search term. The fact that it's wrong shouldn't be relevant - otherwise, we'd need to delete Me109. Tevildo (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Super Smash Bros.without a section redirect. Quite frankly, anything after the "4" designation is up for debate since some people consider the Wii U and 3DS versions "4" collectively, but others consider them "4" and "5" collectively. Let the readers try to figure out what the heck they are trying to find if searching these terms because we are not mind readers. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These need retargetting, as these are not specific to UCAV. Military drones can be unarmed, such as the Global Hawk, and most target drones (Q-planes) like the QF-4 (retired fighter converted to target drone). Armed drones are not restricted to UCAVs, such as sea drones operated by Ukraine that have sunk many Russian ships. On the Ukrainian battlefield, armed and unarmed land drones (unmanned ground vehicle -- UGV) also are being used, as are armed and unarmed aerial drones (UAV - unmanned aerial vehicle). Both the US and China have demonstrated drone tanks and robot dogs with machine guns. Police have tracked ground drones armed with shotguns, so not just militaries have armed drones. UXOD and landmine clearing also use military ground drones.
Delete The name of the Jane Eyre character is St John Rivers. Even if the redirect page's name were corrected, there is no reason for its existence compared with dozens of other characters of equal importance in the novel. Masato.harada (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly uninformed, but i'd say weak keep as a plausible-ish spelling, as is the case with "john saint john" redirecting to the "proper" name. on another note, is there some weird technical reason the nomination was improperly formatted? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I came across it when searching for the various Saint John Rivers, and that disambiguation page already lists the character but also provides links to the more likely meanings. If we keep it, change the target to the disamb page. (And if you want properly formatted nominations, I suggest streamlining this byzantine nomination procedure.) --Enyavar (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It's not nonsense. "St" is short for "saint", even when it's used in somebody's name. People with "Saint" in their names almost always use the abbreviated version, but I can point you at some notable exceptions. I remember Susan Saint James getting very cranky when journalists didn't spell out "saint." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Isaac. It's not nonsense. All other entries in the disambiguation page are singular, this is the closest for the Jane Eyre character. Jay 💬14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you place on a disambiguation page for this term? There are over 10,000 uses of tighten (or variants like tightens, tightened, and tightening) in the mainspace. I couldn't review them all, but from what I did see, there aren't enough candidates to justify creating a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott04:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Eureka Lott, I struggled to find alternative candidates to list on a DAB page. I concur with Red-tailed hawk that a soft redirect is unhelpful here. In the absence of other suitable targets, I see no reason to change from the present one. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 23:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreeing with Presidentman, unless there's a few good suggestions for the contents of a DAB, I think it should remain as-is. I don't think the existing redirect is helpful to many people, but I don't think moving it to anywhere else would be an improvement either, so keep. BugGhost🪲👻10:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tight? Hat note to character (i.e. the current target) and add a wikt link box to the page for wikt:tighten. Not the ideal solution, however, it might be the best that can be done for now (bar an article on the generalized topic, which would be difficult). Either that, or delete it. The search engine seemingly handles it better. This is a rare case where it seems keeping it as is would be a harmful surprise. Loosen does not exist. — Godsy (TALKCONT)09:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Tight seems fine to me. I am hard-pressed to imagine the person specifically looking up the Megamind-related meaning. BD2412T14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor retarget to Wiktionary:tighten. I'm having severe difficulty believing that a reader looking up the word "tighten" would be attempting to locate any of the subjects currently listed at the disambiguation page Tight. In addition, I do agree that the Megamind reference is so obscure that leaving the redirect as is is probably not helpful. The best ways to serve the readers in the case areis probably ... we either give them search results so they can figure out what they are trying to find, or we send them to Wiktionary so they can get a definition of this word. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SSRT-ers have it ... scrap the Wiktionary reference. However, this word is so common as an word in English that I believe most readers being directed to the Megamind article are going to be unclear why they were led to the article if they were looking for the concept of "tighten". Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. No suitable alternatives have been identified: there's nothing to put on a potential disambiguation page, redirecting to Wiktionary wouldn't be appropriate per WP:SSRT, and the term isn't mentioned on the Tight disambiguation page. That leaves the current target as the only viable option. No objection to a disambiguation page if some good candidates are identified. - Eureka Lott17:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list does say some patents have "achieved notoriety in other ways", but not all patents listed are "notorious" (if we are editorializing here), and the list isn't about patent controversies anyways. Misleadings and unlikely search term. Catalk to me!06:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some software patents have been described as "notorious" by reliable sources, so it is a reasonable search term, and it is reasonable (and not uncommon) for a more specific search term to redirect to a broader article. However someone using this search term is almost certainly looking for either a list of software patents that are (or have been called) notorious or information on what makes a software patent notorious, but that information is not in the target article or the main article about software patents, making the redirect misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know I'm going against the grain here, but... for starters, I agree that this is a plausible search term. I also agree that redirects need not follow the NPOV naming policy, and in fact, POV article names are best as redirects. Where I disagree with the above !votes is the idea that the target article is not the best place to get information on notorious software patents. I've read the article/list... and while it does include some non-notorious patents, it definitely includes the notorious ones as well. From where I'm standing, that means that this article provides the information the searcher is looking for, and that's the job of a redirect. Fieari (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: while it might include the notorious patents, you can only know that if you already know which software patents are notorious (so the article tells you nothing you don't already know). If you want to learn which are notorious then you will have had your time wasted at best (because the article doesn't tell you) or mislead into thinking they're all notorious. If you want to learn what makes software patents notorious, either in general or what makes specific ones notorious then again the article is of no benefit to you. In all cases the redirect misleads the searcher into to thinking we have content that we do not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AFFINITY (i.e. titles with adjectives (e.g. 'important', 'significant', and 'consequential') that have no more affinity than any other for the subject at hand), unless a strong case with a well-sourced mention can be materialized. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disambiguated acoustic punk with links to acoustic music, folk punk, antifolk, and gypsy punk, however, it was restored to its original redirect, and there appears to be some confusion on the acoustic punk talk page, so am listing it here to get consensus on whether the redirect or disambiguation page is more appropriate. I feel like the disambiguation page would work better because folk music is acoustic, and folk punk, antifolk, and gypsy punk can be performed acousticly sans electric amplification. Moline1 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the talk page, this could perhaps be a broad concept article, but not a disambiguation page at present. None of these articles are ambiguously titled with the term "acoustic punk" and at present, none of them even so much as mention the term. If the articles are updated to provide some indication as to why they are suitable for inclusion on a dab for "acoustic punk", that could work as well, but otherwise a broad concept article is needed to provide context for these unambiguously titled articles. older ≠ wiser09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig - A disambiguation page is more helpful than being redirected to a more general page (ie. Acoustic music). Users who want Acoustic music can click on that link, users who are looking for a more specific acoustic punk subgenre are presented with a list of them to chose from. The previous DAB was lacking a clarifying introduction though. BugGhost🪲👻09:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present, none of the articles contain any indication that they are ambiguous with the term. These articles may be conceptually related topics, but strictly speaking the current titles and content of the articles are not ambiguous. older ≠ wiser10:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moline isn't suggesting that articles like Folk punk and Celtic punk etc are ambiguous - they are saying that the term Acoustic punk is ambiguous, which is evident seeing as we are disagreeing on the topic. Seeing as that term is ambiguous, we should disambiguate it. BugGhost🪲👻11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that at present there is no existing article that addresses that ambiguity. Why should we direct readers to articles like folk punk or celtic punk that say nothing directly about "acoustic punk"? older ≠ wiser12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... because they are punk subgenres that focus heavily on acoustic elements? The target articles do not need to express an ambiguity, because they are not the ones being disambiguated. Either way, I think you and I have sufficiently clarified our positions - let's put a pin in this comment thread and see what other editors say on the topic. BugGhost🪲👻13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, except that's not really disambiguation -- that is more like saying we don't have an article on "acoustic punk" but here are some articles that might have some conceptual overlap. older ≠ wiser16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are theories that robbie rotten was the previous sportacus and wore the number 9, though they have little to no evidence that could be used here. retarget to his article, keep as is, or delete as fancruft? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been changed from "Sportacus" to "Sportacus 10" in the first sentence of article but there is no explanation and the article title has not been changed. If there is no explanation of "9" or "10" in the article, the redirect is not useful and should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While E610 is mentioned at the target (it was the serial number of the gas tank that leaked and caused the disaster), this string also shows up in several other articles, such as LG Optimus L5, Orange SPV and South African Class 5E1, Series 2. Neither an internet search nor Google Scholar suggest a primary target, so deletion to allow for internal search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguilltalk18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Search finds these uses among other less useful results: lists that mention the LG Optimus, and various pages where references contain the string "E610" in page numbers or URLs. Peter James (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nuzlocke" is not mentioned in the target article. Nuzlocke section was removed from the article in January 2023 and seems no one objected: [16]. In 2015, Nuzlocke article was redirected to Pokémon after an AfD. Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you didn't actually add the RfD to the delsort list. It has to be added manually over there, like this. In this case, I replaced a closed RfD with this one. Nickps (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think a mention in gameplay of pokémon would work, but hopefully with better sources than the ones removed in that diff. put my vote on hold until i remember to look for that cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say re-add the information, although finding new sources would be a good improvement. On the contrary to user:Juxlos's judgement that the Nuzlocke Challenge is "nothing special" because "there are multiple fan-made modes": most of them are based on or inspired by the Nuzlocke, and AFAIK the ones that aren't come from the speedrunning community. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the previously deleted information from the current target article to this page, creating a new article here. I can see the WP:DUE weight issue with nuzlocke being in the main article, but it looks like it should pass WP:GNG, so give it its own article right here. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to move the new disambiguation page, Harry Patterson (disambiguation), over this title. The current redirect subject, Jack Higgins, may well be a popular author, but his real name was "Henry Patterson" (not Harry), and he apparently only ever made limited use of the name "Harry Patterson", finally switching to "Jack Higgins" before he became famous; I therefore do not think there is a primary topic for the actual name, "Harry Patterson". BD2412T01:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current target Muslim Kayastha is very specifically referring to a community in a region in India. Meanwhile this name found all over Pakistan and Bangladesh as well among unrelated communities. (e.g the name is listed here as a Sindhi name as well List of Sindhi tribes (in the "others" section) Kowtis (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very knowledgeable in the subject, but I would suggest converting to disamb page here, unless there's a clear primary topic that someone can explain. Note: this is an RfD nomination that I've helped out with on behalf of User:Kowtis who had trouble doing it themselves, they have explained to me on their talk page that this redirect should be retargeted to Siddiqui (name). — AP 499D25(talk)10:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal/deletion of current redirect as it creates misleading impression. The redirect page reflects the name of a separate organization with its own initiatives whereas the target page reflects another organization that is now dissolved. In the current target page there's even a proposal on the Talk page from someone addressing this confusion. There should be a separate page and information about the redirect page of SportAccord JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard, indeed. But I feel there would be value to having a separate SportAccord page as these are entirely different entities and it's tricky to combine them into one article efficiently as they have different structures, activities, missions. JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it seems there's a connection between the two pages and organizations, SportAccord seems to have very different initiatives and a strong user following from people who attend the SportAccord events so there will be a benefit to distinguishing clearly the two organizations.
The website mentioned in GAISF infobox https://gaisf.sport currently redirects to https://sportaccord.sport However it only has links to some summits and does not mention of any list of member federations.
Another website https://gaisf.org which is linked from some member federations' website (such as https://www.ilsf.org/about/recognition/gaisf/) says on its homepage "DISSOLUTION OF GAISF APPROVED AT EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, RECORD ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS, NEXT STEPS CLARIFIED". Opening the link takes us to [22] which explains the development in details including the role of SportAccord. Also, its history page says the following:
2003: GAISF in collaboration with the Association of Summer and Winter Olympic International Federations (ASOIF and AIOWF) launch the first SportAccord International Convention to answer a need from the IF’s which were looking to have a “one stop shop”, where they could all hold their annual meetings, be encouraged to network and share their knowledge.
2017: SportAccord is renamed GAISF (Global Association of International Sports Federations)
2022: Members approve dissolution of GAISF at Extraordinary General Assembly
Honestly, I cannot construct a coherent history from this. If GAISF "launched" SportAccord, how did the latter also become "GAISF". Were there two bodies by the name of GAISF since 2017? If SportAccord was already remnamed in 2017, what is the SportAccord that functions currently? If someone knows more about this, it would be easier to make a decision. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Adopting the Global Association of International Sports Federations name better represents the nature of the organisation and makes a clear distinction from the SportAccord Convention and any other commercial activities carried out under and on behalf of SportAccord/GAISF," GAISF said in a statement.
Basically I think this shows why this current redirect is not accurate and SportAccord needs its own Wikipedia article - GAISF has always been a separate organization (which is now dissolved and doesn't exist) , whereas SportAccord Convention (now known as just SportAccord) is a separate thing too - a popular annual event with editions for over 20 years now. JennyAnderson 2 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
different targets, and there's an article for the metal ages... which is itself divided into 3 ages, the last of which seems to be referred to as "the" metal age, even though they're grouped together because they're different metals. i'll vote for retargeting both of those to metal ages, unless someone actually knows their stuff cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate at Metal Age, then retargetThe Metal Age there. I guess I know some stuff, and it looks like "Metal Age" or "The Metal Age" (both singular) could refer to:
The Metal Ages (Copper, Bronze, Iron) in the traditional three age system, collectively – but this is more of a turn of phrase than a formal period [24][25][26]
The Metal Age in the prehistory of Southeast Asia – a specific, formal period (presumably because bronze and iron arrived there simultaneously) [27][28][29][30][31][32]
I don't see a primary topic amongst them and I'm also not sure about Metal Ages as standalone article, there's not much to say about them collectively other than that they all involved metal. @Iskandar323: What do you think? – Joe (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Joe. I think they should both redirect to Metal Ages (though this should possibly move to the singular, both as best practice stylistically and apparently as the most common form in scholarship (Ngrams)). While the page as is stubby, it's for lack of attention, not for lack of material. The scholarly literature using the conceptual period grouping is considerable. The Metal Age in Southeast Asia might have a slightly different progression, but it is conceptually the same thing. Hesiod's idea within an idea mercifully has a quite different form. The Thief II title name is not something I think we need to be concerned with, any more than we need to disambiguate "resurrection" to account for the fourth installment of the Aliens franchise when directing to that topic. If a disambiguation page feels warranted, I would suggest linking to it with a hatnote from the Metal Ages page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about combining the Metal Age of Southeast Asia and the "metal ages" of the rest of the world. In most of the Old World the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages are firmly distinct periods (the latter two being two of the original three ages) and referring to them together as either "the metal age" or "the metal ages" is honestly something I'd never come across until today (though Google Scholar tells me it happens). By contrast archaeologists of Southeast Asia consistently use it as a distinct, top-level period with the subdivisions early, developed, and proto-historic rather than copper, bronze, and iron. So we could write Metal Age Southeast Asia but not Metal Age Europe or Metal Age Southwest Asia because nobody really talks about that (instead we have Bronze Age Europe, Iron Age Europe). – Joe (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it's somewhat academic at this point when a Metal Age of Southeast Asia page doesn't exist yet. I think the reason why the Metal Ages are emerging more and more as a reference point is because the three-age system is a bit dated and broken and underappreciates the major technology step of metallurgy. The stone age is also, in of itself, massive – comprising the paleolithic, mesolithic and neolithic, so it's generally pretty useless and unhelpful to group that with the bronze and iron ages, which are very distinct from the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The Metal Age", specifically, clearly refers to Thief II. There's no other convincing primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article leads specify that they are Grand Dukes (of Bosnia), and have holdings in Hum... heck, Vlatko is specified to be a Duke of Hum. Seems plausible to me that someone would mash the two facts together when searching for this person. A redirect doesn't have to be accurate, and mistakes and misunderstandings are perfectly acceptable reasons to have a redirect. The target is also unambiguous here. Doesn't really matter if there actually is a "Grand Duke" title for Hum or not. Fieari (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory Google Books search for "grand duke of hum" and "veliki vojvoda humski" don't turn up these people, but it does turn up some other people, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, Miroslav, Vojislav. Santasa99 what is the actual significance of this title, if any? --Joy (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys! Duke of Hum exists as a title, Grand Duke of Hum does not/did not, and there is very clear record about every known/recorded local nobleman and how he used to title himself - so no mystery there. In case of Vlatko Vuković and Sandalj Hranić they did not use title Duke of Hum either, they always signed themselves or were mentioned in charters as Grand Duke of Bosnia only. Many other local noblemen, even of lesser status than Vuković, Hranić, and later Vukčić (all members of Kosača clan) wore the Duke of Hum title - such as Sankovićs, Nikolićs, Vlatkovićs, etc. - simply there was no such title as Grand Duke of Hum, there was only Grand Duke of Bosnia as a title. Of all Kosača members, only Stjepan Vukčić wore both titles, the Duke of Hum and Grand Duke of Bosnia, and also Knez of Drina and of Primorje, and he almost always used full title. There was also nobility from earlier periods, but as far as I know nobility in pre-Bosnian medieval state era mostly wore title of knez (knyaz/prince) and župan. In short, title Grand Duke of Hum never existed. ౪ Santa ౪99°00:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWiki#Security has no info on checkusers or equivalent functions. Checkusers are not something which beginner editors, who might not realize the existence of the Wikipedia namespace, would search up. Catalk to me! 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Keep Actually, I am convinced by the below arguments. CheckUser is Wikipedia specific(no room for confusion), and new users may come across the term checkuser in the examples provided below. Catalk to me!16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the question should be whether this is a potential useful redirect and whether it's unambiguous. I think it is, on both accounts. It being a cross-namespace redirect does not mean it's not useful. Those types of redirects aren't covered under WP:CSD R2, meaning, in certain cases, they're allowed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING - no reliable sources (that I could find) discuss the topic, therefore there is no article to be made. Our myriad of jargony internal policy documents don't serve much of a purpose for readers looking for an encyclopedia article on this topic, which we do not have. Project pages are not articles, do not have the same standards, and are written for a completely different audience. If we really want to have cross-namespace redirects from reader-space into project-space, we should do it with a soft redirect, one that will advise the reader that we do not have an encyclopedia article on the topic they're looking for, but they can click through if they really want to see how the sausage is made; just dumping them into project space unawares is frankly kind of cruel. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh (weak keep). I see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ivanvector that there is likely no chance that CheckUser (be it the MediaWiki extension, the WMF implementation thereof, or anything else similar) is going to be a notable topic on its own. But I'm confused why that means that we need to delete it. We have multiple other CNRs from Main->Project, such as Administrators noticeboard (and variations), Autoconfirmed, Disambiguation page, Good article, and many more (can sift through Category:Redirects to project space to find more). Unless there's previously been a discussion that has resulted in a consensus that main->project redirects are not permitted... then what's the harm? If the topic isn't notable, there's a non-zero chance someone who, say, is checkuser blocked will simply search the term "Checkuser" on Wikipedia, and I don't think it serves them to not redirect them to our project space page explaining it. If the topic was potentially notable on its own, then making an article would be preferable - but I don't buy the argument that a blank/deleted page is better than a redirect if someone searches for it on Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: redirects from the mainspace to project space are discouraged (see WP:CNR for the background) and frequently deleted. Exceptions do exist, most commonly (but not exclusively) where it is desirable that the target page is easy to find by very new users who haven't learned about namespaces yet (administrators noticeboard and Wikipedia help are examples). The second most common is for internal aspects that people outside the project will have heard of (or assume exist) and want to look up but which don't have an encyclopaedic target (e.g. good articles). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unreasonable to think that those two are things a new user would be likely to search for, and not CheckUser, when CheckUser is used as a rationale for a block or referenced on those noticeboards sometimes. I am not saying they shouldn't be discouraged, but this is one that actually makes sense, in my view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing inherently wrong with CNRs. Our goal is to help the reader get to where they want to go. Anyone typing "CheckUser" into the search bar evidently wants to get to the project page. Deleting it is just removing a helpful, unambiguous redirect for no reason. CFA💬16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful CNR shortcut created by a well-established editor many years ago (2017) based on another CNR shortcut (Checkuser). That one was created by another well-established editor many years before that (2006). 1) Both are firmly "grandfathered in" CNRs, and 2) per WP:R#KEEP, R3, R4 and R5. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there01:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of assassinations or another article. There is no reason to believe that this, only 24ish hours after the news broke, will be the primary topic, and so a redirect should not have been created. I suspect there have also been quite a few attempted assassinations in 2024 that didn't occur in the USA, and so this could also be considered a US centric redirect. Failing a redirect, it should be deleted -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, there isn't really a good redirect target now, so I'm clarifying my !vote to support a disambiguation page being created at this page to list assassination (attempts) in 2024. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am against this redirect. The world doesn't revolve around America and its internal politics. This would perpetuate America-centric systemic bias on the site. JDiala (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't supposed to speculate either way. And it's obvious that calling something the primary topic "this point in the year" violates WP:RECENTISM. We don't change, or even create, redirects just because something is what you think is the primary topic right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you could argue it is recentism, but common sense is also useful here. This was an attempted assassination on a former US president, arguably the most powerful person in the world. It was the first time anything like this happened in more than 40 years. This is not a US news story, it's an international news story. Regardless, I'm not opposed to a redirect to the list. CFA💬02:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense does not mean US-centric common sense. Your entire argument here is based on a US centric view that the only important assassination (attempt) in 2024 is the one against the former president of the US. And that's why I'm !voting to redirect to another topic or delete. Because that's not a valid argument. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, there were only two assassination attempts in 2024 (so far) notable enough to be included in the list above. It's not really a US-centric approach because an assassination attempt against a former world leader (of arguably the most powerful country in the world) will inherently be more significant than the majority of other attempts, both in the country of origin and internationally. This was a story that was reported in local newspapers around the world. If a former president of South Korea and a congressman in the US were both targeted in assassination attempts, the one against the former president would be the primary topic. This doesn't have much to do with local bias. CFA💬02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew I had seen another attempted assassination of a head of state/leader of a country in 2024, but I couldn't pinpoint it. For clarity, this fact should be considered part of my argument above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Yes, because there have been other attempts on other people, Trump isn't the center of the universe, and Wikipedia should not be so heavily focused on the US perspective etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Robert Fico, Lee Jae-Myung, probably a dozen Russian businessmen, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mohammed Deif (for the umpteenth time) all can lay claim to that title. The US isn't special in that regard. Bremps...05:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RfD concerns the fate of the page at the exact name of "2024 assassination attempt". A redirect is defined by its name. An RfD isn't needed to create new pages. About your idea for a new page: A page titled "List of assassination attempts in 2024" would be a list, not a dab. —Alalch E.11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambig per above. This is too general to redirect to a single instance, the attempted assassination of Robert Fico, the prime minister of Slovakia, happened this year too (I've added it to the list article above, no idea why it wasn't there already). Google searches indicate that there have also been (events described as) assassination attempts made on Mohammed Deif and Volodymyr Zelensky at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or retarget to anchor in List of people who survived assassination attempts. I created 2020 assassination attempt to illustrate (I don't think that this redirect and other such redirects are / would be especially good, but this not a WP:POINTed creation, as it is within acceptable bounds from my perspective). Oppose dab. A dab would practically duplicate the list, and WP:NOTDUP does not apply to disambiguation pages when the same content is served in a list (not a different navigation method—the navigation method provided would be essentially the same).—Alalch E.11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIAS; search results would handle this fine without needing to manually compile a separate search index, which also would undoubtedly suffer from systemic bias based on several comments here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Chilodontidae is a former spelling (now regarded as incorrect) for a gastropod family. Chiodontidae is a current, correct spelling for a fish family. See the Chilodontidae dab page. Template redirect uses the spelling for the fish family to redirect to a stub sorting template for the gastropod family Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are similar, but there's an important difference: the double dual is purely algebraic and completely general (basic linear algebra), while the bidual requires a topology and is much more specific, namely in functional analysis. They should reference and linked to each other as related and confusingly similar, but distinct.
Comment. It seems that "bidual" and "double dual" are used synonymously, although I have never heard of "double dual". However, there are two notions of biduals corresponding to two notions of duals: the algebraic dual formed by the linear forms and the topological dual formed by the continuous linear forms. So, I suggest to transform Bidual into a dab page with two entries and to redirect Double dual there. The entries could be labeled "in linear algebra" (for the present target of bidual) and "of a topological vector space" (for the present target of double dual). D.Lazard (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page seems in order, given the multiple meanings of "double dual". I've drafted one at [36], linking to Bidual, and added a link from (the target of) Bidual back to Double dual at [37]. WDYT?
I've heard the term "Double dual" used widely in linear algebra, group theory, etc., but this is the first I've heard of "Bidual", and it seems specific to the Topological Vector Spaces (though used specifically for normed spaces, Locally convex topological vector space, etc.). A quick check of Wikipedia and Google agrees.
If someone more familiar with biduals wants to expand that to a dab too, no objections, but given the distinct uses, "double dual" and "bidual" aren't generally used synonymously and shouldn't be merged, despite the similar meaning ("dual of dual, in some context"). Notably algebraic duals or Pontryagin duality don't generally use the term "bidual".
They seem fine if one takes only into account the links that have been provided before. However, none of the drafts link to Duality (mathematics)#Dual objects, were a general concept is defined, called there bidual, that includes as special instances all examples given in the two drafts. I do not know how to link it in either dab page without increasing confusion. So, I remains convinced that the best solution is to merge the dab pages with a primary meaning linking to Duality (mathematics)#Dual object. Again it seems that this is the best way to solve the terminology problem that the general concept called bidual has its most elementary instances called double dual. D.Lazard (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Sdn Bhd refers to a malaysian public company. Sendririnan Berhad is not a person but a longer version. I agree with the IP though, the current article is very UK-specific. 48JCL12:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Participants agree that retargeting would be the best outcome, but it is currently unclear where these two redirects should target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!07:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this term just a foreign language term for the same thing? In that case we should delete per WP:RFOR. Alternatively, is there a distinction that would make this more like a proper name for the concept, being brought into the English corpus as a loanword? In that case we should delete it to WP:RETURNTORED and encourage a proper article to explain the difference. Fieari (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this term just a foreign language term for the same thing? No. It's the Malay (and possibly Malaysian English?) term for a type of Malaysian legal entity that is roughly equivalent to, but not the same as, the British legal entity. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Another relist because of the latest comments that suggest a new direction. Also notified of this discussion at the talk pages of the suggested targets and the redirect creator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬08:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: I have reverted your bold retarget and restored the redirect with the RfD tag as nominated to allow for proper consensus to be reached on where to target this. As stated at WP:RFD, please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 04:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment48JCL I think you maybe need to give a bit more of an argument for why it should be retargeted. Even if Botswanan isn't a "proper" word I think for most readers the main Botswana article is a good target; it also mentions the Tswana people in the lead paragraph for example. Skynxnex (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Botswanan" not being 'a proper word' isn't really an issue-- the question is if it's *a plausible word*. Adding an -n, -an, or -ian suffix to the name of a place is a typical English way of signifying "from this place" or "people from this place", see American, Mexican, Canadian, Italian, ect, just like "-ish" (English, Spanish, ect) or "-ese" (Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, ect). I can easily see someone unfamiliar with the term Batswana to invent terms like Botswanese, Botswanish, or, yes, Botswanan.That said, I would Retarget to the Tswana DAB, simply to match the other 'from this place' words above. The searcher is clearly looking for information on *something* from Botswana- let's both inform them of the correct term, AND offer up the multiple meanings for said word. After all, who's to say they're not looking for the language they speak in Botswana? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That... definitely presents an issue, given part of the reason I targeted the Tswana DAB was its link to Tswana language; many demonyms also serve as a name for the language that group uses (see English, Chinese, German, ect); and given Botswanan is a made-up and incorrect demonym, there's really nothing stopping someone from also using it as an incorrect name for the language.The only idea I have is, to retarget to the Motswana DAB, and then add a See Also that targets the Tswana DAB? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the better solution. The sources that Thryduulf has included in their comment show that "Botswanan" refers just as much to the country itself as it does to the people or language. Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections. If this is closed, the result would probably be like merge 2 articles and retarget to disambiguation. 48JCL01:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is leading to agreement on a disambiguation page but it is unclear if the current redirect will be converted to it, or be targeted to a new disambiguation page that needs to be created. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hollies' Greatest is a British album released by Parlophone. Per the edit history, the West German album was released by Hansa Records. The track listings are also different, which all but confirms these are different pressings. --Tavix(talk)16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any non–user generated sources, but I'm fairly certain that the West German album and Hollies' Greatest are in fact separate (they seem to have separate covers for one), so that is not a good retargeting option. Retargeting to the discography would be a good option if it was on there, but it's not, and I know too little about the area to properly search for sources to add it to the discography. Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:48, 16 June 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.