Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 13

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2024.

Stars and planetary systems in fiction

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY per the rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Fictional stars and planetary systems. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be feasible to create a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first step either way should be to convert incoming links to point to Extrasolar planets in fiction (the less ambiguous title) if that was the intended target, or to Stars in fiction, and, if links specifically pointing to the WP:XY title remain (e.g., intended to link more generally to fictional systems of star+planets), we can see if there are enough to warrant either a disambiguation page or a section in one of the two articles. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All links in mainspace and templates have already been taken care of. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So all the traffic is from external websites? In this case I'm guessing it was intended to point to Extrasolar planets in fiction, so keep per above to avoid linkrot. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Category:Television series by CBS Television Studios

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category redirect created by an indefinitely-blocked user which should be eligible for WP:G5 but I tagged this as a WP:C1, which Liz reverted and suggested I list this here for deletion. This category is like other cats moved to newer/later titles without rdr by JJMC89 bot III. Intrisit (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - There's not really any harm in it, and it could help if someone adds the category—the category redirect function will fix it automatically—but I don't think it will be added anymore (4 years after rebrand now), and the category renaming procedure typically does not leave behind a redirect as the nom states. -2pou (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

East Midlands Mainline

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Midland Main Line. Consensus (and logic) appears to be on the side of this retargetting. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this redirect even exists. Could also be (re)targeted to Midland Main Line (preferred) or east Midlands Railway JuniperChill (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I expect that this redirect exists because (according to the article) East Midlands Trains ran services called "Mainline". I do not know whether they were ever called "East Midlands Mainline" by anyone, but it would not surprise me too much. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
East Midlands Mainline may not be common, but It's not hard to find examples, often in the same item that also calls it Midland Mainline.
  • Council urges electrification of East Midlands Mainline[1]
  • an interchange station with the East Midlands Mainline is to be located[2]
  • East Midlands Mainline commuters were told back in 2017[3]
  • Find us ... Leicester is on the East Midlands Mainline route[4]
  • three sections of fibre running alongside the railway, each connected to a FOAS interrogator. These cover a section of the East Midlands mainline from[5] (at [6])
  • this contemporary station stands as a pivotal piece of the city's infrastructure, strategically positioned on the East Midlands Mainline[7]
NebY (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[nom comment]Redirect to Midland Main Line then]] JuniperChill (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because plausible alternative name per NebY Okmrman (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Midland Main Line. Finally checking the 6 examples I offered above, #1-4 & 6 are about the Midland Main Line (#5 is about the Birmingham–Peterborough line). Though at present East Midlands Trains are a train operating company on the Midland Mail Line, that may not last, so they're a bad target. NebY (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting to Midland Main Line?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate or Redirect to Midland Main Line, on the one hand EMT did have a service known as "Mainline", but according to the article only lasted a few months. While "Main Line" railways are also termed "Mainlines" and the Midland Main Line goes through the East Midlands, so there is possible confusion. As well as being confused for Midland Mainline which operated in the East Midlands, so possible DAB. However, as those companies no longer exist, while the railway line is still operating, once can assume most readers are looking for the existing line, so open to redirecting to Midlands Main Line too. DankJae 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Universal Monsters Shared Universe

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 16:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "shared universe" is never discussed at the target article, and is only mentioned within one of the external links. In my opinion this is not currently a likely or helpful redirect in the article's current form, as there is no substantial coverage of a shared universe. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a plausible search term. And honestly the only reason shared universe isn't mentioned is because so much material that used to be in the article has been deleted a few years ago in a controversial rewrite.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The controversial edit by Trekker is referring to my own re-write. On trying to organize the films as a whole proved to be fruitless. Namely they don't cross-over until late into the end of the series and there is no rush to lump them all together as a series until they were marketed on home video. They don't narratively connect (and even when they attempt to, it is very loose). As there won't be any mention of how these films connect in that article currently, I'd suggest we remove the re-direct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've recently re-vamped the content to show where the Universal Monsters connect with sources that deal with this specifically. That said, the term "Univerasl Monsters Shared Universe" was not a term I came across and suggesting they are all within the same universe is not really explicitly the case and the this specific term is not mentioned in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kingofthepirates.com

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to One Piece (1999 TV series). (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 14:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead website that was probably fanmade as well. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably not even worth a redirect when alive. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazewaxie: It was not a fansite. It was 4Kids Entertainment's official One Piece site (the privacy policy goes to 4Kids) https://web.archive.org/web/20051001030033/http://kingofthepirates.com/
@Allan Nonymous: would this change if it was revealed that this was 4Kids' One Piece site?
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's... really weird. I mean, maybe it would have changed my mind were it up any time in the past decade-and-a-half but now it's the kind of obscure trivia that's just irrelevant. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect in 2009, when the 4Kids dub was only a few years old. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention added to One Piece (1999 TV series). Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to One Piece (1999 TV series) since mention was added to said page. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Genie (feral child and etc.

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. While both sides made valid arguments (keep arguments noting that these do see use and thus can be considered useful, delete arguments noting that Wikipedia's software makes it such that at most readers following the broken link will be asked to make one further click to reach the same destination), deletion has a sizable advantage in terms of numerical support. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be) Fieari (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions. Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These redirects are not typos for the benefit of people already on Wikipedia, but people navigating to Wikipedia from external sites. Many sites most prominently Reddit, have an issue where the trailing parenthesis is cut off in URLs without some HTML wizardry. The site "forces" users to make these "typos" when you just copy the link sometimes. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:RDAB due to the missing end parentheses. Also, delete per precedence set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14#Conjunction (grammar and etc.. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "Perfect is the enemy of good" problem. Tantek (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All links are updateable, through either direct editing, or replacement if locked. The notice that appears on every page saying "did you mean to close your parentheses" would not discourage readers from reaching their destination being just a click away, and encourages the phasing-out of any erroneous links. "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not seem to be accurate when we aren't dealing with an out-of-reach concept of totality; there's no 80-20 about it. This the entire set of titles that are out of alignment with redirect fundamentals, and the problem can be solved with just this RfD. The lack of these redirects will not prevent anyone beyond finding it gone a single time, and immediately finding a new solution in seconds, whether it comes from adding a parentheses to their search term or url, or adding it to the link itself if handy, or generating one's own link. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child) OrewaTel (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).

    b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)

    Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) - wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all based on the fact there are legitimate reasons why people might be visiting these redirects other than simply typos. For example, in Markdown, unescaped right parentheses are interpreted as the end of a URL, so often times when people link these Wikipedia pages in Reddit comments, people will be directed to these sorts of titles. In addition, of course redirects are cheap. --Habst (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all These redirects are explicitly discouraged and would fall under WP:R3 if created today. There is precedent for deleting them, and keeping them would have WP:PANDORA issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per all the other times those redirects with missing parentheses got deleted cogsan (nag me (stalk me 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and these are all likely from external links on sites such as Reddit and are absolutely pointed at the correct targets. These also all appear to be popular enough to get regular use about 5 users a day or so. Genie especially is frequently posted and can get very high daily page views (e.g. 6k a few weeks ago). It does Wikipedia no good to delete it or to force them to make an additional click. Arguments to delete because no one is going to forget typing the closing parentheses or because of auto-fill should be ignored, as the use case for this is almost exclusively linking from external sites. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the formatting issues with Reddit's Markdown language for its posts that is the primary reason for these redirects existing in the first place: [8]. Very few people are using these links deliberately. They are being forced to, and we should've deliberately inconvenience readers because of minor stylistic issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be responsible for creating redirects accounting for bugs in other platform's errors. A bug that has been fixed years ago, from the looks of it, being fixed well before the reddit post was made, as implied. People using old reddit are doing so knowing full well its limitations. So now there's zero surprise that a parenthesis could go missing at the end of a URL, as it's been long-since documented and understood, apparently. The solution is not "allow infinite redirects with botched-up disambiguation because old-reddit users might run into a broken link here and there, despite it being fixed for many years but refuse to upgrade to avoid it"; or, we can stop supporting "Foo (bar" titles due to the pollution it causes on our end, allowing implausible misnomers among redirects, splitting histories and causing messes and clutter that can be simply avoided. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Also in response to the reddit poster's query linked, I tried the second hyperlink on both old and new reddit and it seems to be working fine for me; I'm getting to Paris (surname) both ways.) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i hear the error (whatever it actually is) was fixed ages ago cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it does not work for me in Old Reddit either on PC or mobile, with or without RES. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reddit is an absolutely massive website with hundreds of millions of users, so even a small percentage of Old Reddit users represents a significant population. Old Reddit users aren't people who just forgot to upgrade or something, there are real downsides to New Reddit (mainly ads-related) that lead them to opt out. A bug being documented is not equal to the bug being understood and 100% of end users having the technical know-how to avoid it. While not a scientific survey of any sort, anecdotal open-source evidence [9] seems to show that approximately 5% of Reddit users seem to use the older version.
No one is saying that we should enthusiastically encourage or go out of our way to create a duplicate redirect for each page with a parenthetical disambiguator. But for ones that did get created, someone found them WP:USEFUL and where we have proof that they do get use as is the case here, which are two reasons explicitly listed as the #4 and 5reasons not to delete redirects at WP:R#KEEP, where's the harm in keep them? Far more editor time has been wasted trying to delete these than has ever been spent on creating them in the first place. These titles are not misnomers, with only a clear typographical difference and the page histories are usually extremely short. Many of these have also stood a decade or more without any serious issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are pointless, as people are unlikely to be typing in the full disambiguation anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – Many chat programs and similar, when making links clickable, automatically omit a trailing parenthesis, considering it part of the surrounding punctuation, so redirects repairing this are always useful. Gawaon (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Vote changed to delete all, since, as Shhhnotsoloud pointed out (below), our software already handles this automatically, so there is no need for creating or maintaining such links manually. Gawaon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP. Would I have created these redirects myself? Possibly not. Do they do any harm to the encylopedia and/or readers by existing? Also no - as far as I can see, they are practically harmless. I'm not seeing how these types of redirect are problematic enough to warrant deletion, and deletion may well do harm by breaking external links (WP:R#K4). To answer Utopes' point above, we're not responsible for creating these sorts of redirects for every title that exists, but I don't see how deleting the ones that do get created benefits the project. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are exemplar cases of WP:RDAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity are any of the other examples at RDAB the result of programming error? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patar knight: I don't know, but arguably Wikipedia isn't here to provide redirects to get around everyone else's bugs. (And anyway ... in old Reddit a redirect that misses the trailing parenthesis gets you to, for example, Harris (surname. The first thing at that page and many others is "Did you mean: Harris (surname)?". We simply don't need these redirects, and already have a useful essay which lists the kind of redirects we don't need. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel1943 (edit: maybe we should make a new CSD for this) JoshuaAuble (talk) (edits) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, noting the nomination has been open for over five weeks, as consensus has yet to precipitate. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Lunamann and Steel1943. mwwv(converse) 14:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:RDAB and Steel1943. These are not only unhelpful as a link but also unnecessary as a search term as the valid title exists and will autocomplete anyways. Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; deletion would be actively harmful by forcing thousands a month to make one more click, with only the most trivial gain of cleanliness on our part. I am unsure why half the comments in favour of deletion appear to presuppose the falsehood that readers are accessing these redirects by searching these titles. All it takes is 10 seconds to check the rationale for these redirects' existence, which is incidentally why the PANDORA argument of mindless copying of redirect formats has never ever panned out in reality – the most trivial investigation on the part of the mythical editor-in-search-of-redirects-to-create would demonstrate why creation of these is unnecessary. J947 ‡ edits 05:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, & errors on a user's part can be easily fixed by just adding a closing parenthesis in the next edit. (I myself have made this very mistake.) The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Shhhnotsoloud. The redirects are textbook RDAB and if anyone gets to them from another site they can click the handy "Did you mean x" link. We don't need to accomodate the bad code others have written more than we already do. Nickps (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. These are all unnecessary as autocomplete will suggest the correct search term. TarnishedPathtalk 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless at worst, useful at best. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

TotalMedia Theatre

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mention is added, discussion of whether it is WP:DUE can happen in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 06:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per PPP Okmrman (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mentions added to target. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CycloneYoris JoshuaAuble (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

⇢

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to birational maps. Right now the target article has a hatnote for three of the arrows redirecting there, but I'm not sure expanding that indefinitely would be the best option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Birational geometry#Birational maps or the more general Rational mapping (which also uses either this or the similar notation ⤏), someone copy-pasting this specific symbol is much more likely to look for what it means than for a generic "arrow symbol" page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ancient United States

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to History of the United States. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad redirect, folks. Remsense诉 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the United States weren't a thing in the pre-Columbian era for obvious reasons. A retarget to History of the United States (which does mention the pre-Columbian history, but makes it clear the US didn't exist back then, calling it the lands that became the United States) would also be an option. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Immediately I wish I could be more civil but there is no better way to put in back in 2006-2009 I was a toxic cunt, how I didn't get banned back then is a mystery to me. There are far too many pointless redirects I made back then some people aren't even aware of. That's the main reason I want ALL my editing history gone and start entirely from scratch. And even after recovering I doubt my stance will change. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Ancient United States implies that there was a giant united empire in North America at the time, which clearly didn't happen. Okmrman (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't mind retargeting, but in this case I lean toward deletion because this redirect has received 0 page views from before this nomination. Had it actually been used more often than never at all, I would change my mind about it appearing to be an unlikely search term. If it were to be retargeted though, I would prefer History of the United States. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sucking peepee

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid. Fieari (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.[citation needed] (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?) Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funny
    ultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however, google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.
    Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created, pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started). Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per {{R from colloquial name}}.See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25#Kissing_pussy GobsPint (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless. Wikipedia is not a profanity de-censorer. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per Mathglot. What next? Tongue poking the one eyed snake? Does every possibility need to exist regardless of whether it is likely or helpful? TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per arguments already put forward above, and also anyone who actually searches for this term is likely to be a child. Plenty of other redirects lead to fellatio (65 in total) and as far as I can see none of them are as juvenile (with the possible exception of cockgobbling) and unlikely to be searched. Obviously, juvenile content is allowed on Wikipedia but together with the rest of the arguments put forward is it really necessary in this case? Adam Black talk • contributions 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't English learners also search for this term? Air on White (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a language learner. When learning Dutch, I learnt the word "penis" (admittedly I could have taken a guess at that one) long before the colloquial "lul". In Swedish I know the word "manslem", and in Spanish "pene" but don't know any other ways of saying penis in either language. Maybe I'm an oddity, but in my experience language learners learn the actual word first and then the colloquialisms. I'm sure language learners are more likely to use the word "penis" as it's the same in Dutch, German, French (with an accent), Swedish, Portuguese (with an accent), Danish, Bosnian, Norwegian, Turkish and Latin, I'm sure amongst others. The point is, I don't think the argument that maybe English learners will use a relatively obscure euphamism for male genitalia holds up under scrutiny. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it is particularly bad, but to avoid a repeat of the WP:X1 Neelix issues, even if those were more prominently about breasts. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Forgive me for asking this, but isn't this just WP:OTHERSTUFF? If this redirect isn't particularly bad, I don't see why it should be deleted based on the idea that other redirects might be created - if they are, RfD can deal with them as/when they occur. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a policy, it is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. We even have WP:NOTURBANDICT as a shortcut to that page. Ignoring this just leads to [10]. —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of WP:NOTDICT is that it applies to the content of articles rather than redirects, and so would be applicable if e.g. someone wrote a dictionary-definition article on a slang term (which is where Wikipedia is not a...slang...guide would apply). However, per WP:R#K3, redirects from plausible search terms for article subjects are allowed - redirects existing from colloquial terms doesn't violate NOTDICT by my understanding. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite how silly these redirects seem, they are still plausible search terms. Google shows 1,700 results for the exact phrase "sucking peepee." Meanwhile, the alternate spelling "sucking pp," which does not yet have a page, records 11,100 results. The arguments that "sucking peepee" is an unlikely search terms are speculative, as these two were nominated for deletion within an hour of being created, leaving no time to collect pageview data. The likelihood of a redirect being useful should correspond with how often it is viewed, after all. Why not just keep these new redirects? There's no harm. If they truly are useless, we can always RfD again. Air on White (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try… Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Shuggie

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with Shruggie. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as noted, Shug and Shuggie are Scottish nicknames for Hugh. I don't see the need for a disambiguation page though, perhaps add Shuggie Otis to the Hugh article instead. I've already added Shuggie to the infobox as a nickname. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not the Scots Wikipedia, and "shuggie" could be confused with a diminutive form of "sugar". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector Just to note, Scots is a distinct language. Scottish English is a recognised variant of English. We use American English, British English, Indian English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, etc. as appropriate on the English language Wikipedia. I don't think that Scottish English should be ignored and relegated to the edition of Wikipedia in another language. See MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." This isn't to say this particular redirect should be emphatically retained (I've indicated my preference above), just that the use of a nickname (or word in general) predominantly or exclusively in Scotland doesn't automatically mean it's a Scots word. I don't speak Scots, aside from some vocabulary which has made its way into Scottish English, but I do use "Shug" and, to a lesser extent, "Shuggie" as a nickname for people called Hugh. Adam Black talk • contributions 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to see how someone imagining "shuggie" to be a diminutive form of "sugar" (!) will be helped by deleting Wikipedia's redirect to the actual Scottish English usage. NebY (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shuggie Otis describes the nickname: "short for 'sugar', according to his mother", and also see wikt:shug#Etymology 2. Fair point about Scottish English vs the Scots language, I'm just not sure that this is the best usage for this redirect. Besides Shuggie Otis there's also Shuggie Bain; only one of those is about a person named Hugh. I feel like search results would be better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - When I see arguments in an RfD about what the best target should be, it often (not always) means that the disambiguation option should be seriously considered. This is one of those cases, it looks like to me. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Drove

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, since "drove" is also the past tense of "drive". I suggest either disambiguating between driving and drovers' road or retargeting to wiktionary. Duckmather (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first suggestion sounds good. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the past tense of a verb isn't necessarily a good target when the word is also a noun. A hatnote to driving should do the job, no need for a standalone disambiguation page to maintain. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per lent Okmrman (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Anonima italiana petroli

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: the correct name of the company is Anonima Petroli Italiana (API), what can be found on the Internet about Anonima Italiana Petroli (AIP?) concerns other companies (for example in one book he talks about Anonima Italiana Petroli of Piacenza, another says that it subsequently became Società Petrolifera Italiana...). InterComMan (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, from the first sentence in the article "Italiana Petroli S.p.A. (until 2019 Anonima Petroli Italiana S.p.A.), also known by the acronym API or Gruppo API" - it would appear their name has changed but their acronym has not, and has dropped the "Anonima" from its name. This seems like a plausible redirect to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The company was never called Anonima Italiana Petroli, but Anonima Petroli Italiana. In 2019 it changed its name to Italiana Petroli. InterComMan (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was, which I may not have made as well as I could have, with the name having changed it is plausible for a reader to mistake either "Anonima Petroli Italiana" or "Italiana Petroli" for "Anonima Italiana Petroli" given the change in name. As such the redirect is worth keeping. Redirects are not exclusively used for former official names. This Google search shows that there are several examples of this precise mistaken word order on the internet. Adam Black talk • contributions 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Internet, as I showed you, they are mostly references to other companies. However, if it is a common mistake it does not mean that it should be "legitimised". InterComMan (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might have missed one of the points of redirects. They don't legitimise mistakes, they correct them. For example, Scotchland and Scot Land are both redirects to Scotland. I don't think anyone is going to mistakenly type in Scotchland, be taken to a page titled Scotland, and think that Scotchland is the correct spelling. Similarly, AmericA redirects to United States, Neatherlands redirects to Netherlands, Itali redirects to Italy and Russiya redirects to Russia. (I realise these are all countries, not companies, but it's much easier to think of examples for countries). Redirects exist in part to correct mistakes, not to reinforce them. See WP:POFR for more information on when to use redirects. From the search results linked above, any other companies with this name are likely to be non-notable entities and are unlikely to be searched for or have articles created at this page so I feel this is a valid redirect for a possible mistake. Adam Black talk • contributions 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Windows 8.2

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Windows 8.2

Kafka-trapping

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping no longer exists because "Kafkatrapping" isn't a recognised fallacy described in the literature about logic. The list violated WP:LISTGLOSSARY because "Kakfatrapping" does not have a Wikipedia article (and does not qualify for one), just a Wiktionary entry. There has been a prior deletion discussion for Kafka-trap which ended with User:Guarapiranga undoing my removal of List of fallacies#Kafkatrapping and starting a Talk page discussion, which involved getting a third perspective. Since that third perspective was emphatically in favour of removing the entry, I've removed it again. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural. The last two redirects have only been tagged for a day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Knightfall (comics)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget (comics), no consensus on what to do with (character), which does not bar someone from boldly restoring and tagging as merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of "Knightfall" in the target article. Mika1h (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on Knightfall (character). Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the Knightfall (character)'s AfD, 5 out of 6 participants voted merge, and two list targets were proposed. However, Explicit closed the AfD as redirect, not merge. Merge to the current target, or restore and tag with a {{merge to}}. Retarget "(comics)" to Batman: Knightfall per all. Jay 💬 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Road (upcoming film)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer unreleased. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Draft:Kokkarakko

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should've been a quick WP:G7, but with Srivin also having edited, it no longer is, right? But I still hope both of us can agree, that it be deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

LGD redirects

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


LGD redirects (discussion)
[edit]
These 282 "foo LGD" redirects were created in the last two days, on 11 and 12 May 2024.[11] Chocolateediter briefly described their intent as to aid editing "When you have long-ish lists";[12] they are intended to redirect to UK local government districts, hence the novel initialism "LGD". They have now been used to shorten the targets of piped links, eg changing [[London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham|Hammersmith and Fulham]] to [[Hammersmith and Fulham LGD|Hammersmith and Fulham]] (with 30 other such changes) at London boroughs[13] and similarly with 7 other new redirects at Greater Manchester[14]. This obscures the targets for other editors and does nothing to help readers. "LGD" is not an initialism in common use in the UK and can't be expected to make searching easier for readers. NebY (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

NOT:DICTIONARY

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "NOT:" namespace doesn't exist, nor it is short for a real namespace. This is the only page of its kind that uses the NOT pseudo namespace and has seen zero usage. (Special:PrefixIndex/NOT:) A (standard) redirect to this page that it points to is WP:DICTIONARY, which is already shorter. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_13&oldid=1228750552"