Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 18 23
TfD 0 0 2 6 8
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 32 32
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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 what should be 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.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • 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.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcuts

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

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.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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:.)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.)
  9. 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.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 the article texts 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. 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.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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:

  1. 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).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. 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.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • 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|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{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.
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

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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.

Current list[edit]

Shortcuts

April 19[edit]

Open Floor[edit]

No information about "Open Floor" at the target, which is noted in the edit history as being an "entirely different school than 5Rhythms". Was blanked for a moment in 2021, but was restored as a redirect due to no content being added. In any case, this title is ambiguous with Open floor plan which is a redirect to the article of Open plan, who's content is directly pertinent to open floors. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access Directory[edit]

No mention of anything being "open access", or a "directory" at the target page. Currently, this redirect is not helpful as people who might be looking for this directory are instead taken to information about the university instead of information about the directory that they specified. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One World (imprint)[edit]

No mention of this imprint at the target article, anyone specifying this would not receive any content about their search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odiogo[edit]

Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient Recovery and Reuse[edit]

No mention of "Nutrient" at the target page. Was created as a redirect without mention at the target. Afterward, the creator proceeded to link this term in the See Also sections of high profile pages that had very stringent connections to the "Recovery and Reuse of Nutrients". Seems to be an effort to establish notoriety to this term, which appears nowhere on Wikipedia in an academic context, sans the randomly piped See Also mentions. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstop Sampler[edit]

No mention of Nonstop Sampler at the target discography, does not seem to be a likely search term without any content pertinent to it. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-crypto Public Chain[edit]

No mentions of "non-crypto" or "public chain" appear at the target page for Blockchain. It's worth noting that the creator of this article-ish was blocked for WP:UPE later that year (2022). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nine to Noon[edit]

Neither nine nor noon are noted near this novella. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nights' Science[edit]

Similarly, not even "science" appears at the target article, and Nights has been established to not as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nights (program)[edit]

No mention of a program called "Nights" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NetApp FlexVol[edit]

This page came into existence as 300 bytes of unreferenced product description which was BLAR'd within a handful of minutes. "FlexVol" does not appear at the topic, and people specifying this product will receive no information about the subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neohapantotype[edit]

The section for "Hapantotype" exists as a single citationless sentence. This is the only mention of "Hapantotype". A variant that is specifically "neo" is not mentioned nor ever referred to at the target, as even the Hapantotype general section is lacking. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neb-er-tcher[edit]

Apparently a god in Egyptian mythology, however this god is not ever described at the Osiris article, and bears no mention. People who search this term are left confused as to the correlation between this god and Osiris. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 18[edit]

Favorability[edit]

I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --MikutoH talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps Dabify? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personality trait of agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something. Jcbutler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability. Jcbutler (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the most common reason someone would search for this is to find what a "Favorability rating" is, in the context of Opinion polls... but that article doesn't describe or define that term specifically, so it may not be the best target. Crosswiki'ing to wiktionary won't provide the information to the searcher either, as it just defines the word and doesn't discuss or illuminate how it is used, particularly in politics, where someone might be confused about it. I feel like this may actually be a potential article in the making, but I'll be honest and say I don't want to do it. I'm also not sure where this redirect should go. Maybe leaving it as a WP:REDLINK would be best? I'm not sure! Fieari (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:favorability. Redirects are cheap and making it a soft redirect makes it much more helpful than having the reader stare at a bunch of search results. Also, both Google and DuckDuckGo mostly bring up dicdefs, so I don't think it'd hurt if we had another. Duckmather (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a generic term incapable of disambiguation. The sole incoming link meaning of sex-favorable may be created as a different titled redirect, if needed. Jay 💬 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gribbly[edit]

No mention of "grib" at the target article, much less a something or someone that's "gribbly". Alternatives include Gribbly's Day Out which exists as a standalone article, as well as Gribble, Roman Gribbs, and the music director of Rec Room (video game). Zero idea or indication why this is going to Grunge currently, although it's done so since 2007. (Doesn't seem to have been mentioned within the former history of Grunger, which is where it used to point back in 2005). These 2005 redirects are... surely something, lol. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbino's Quest[edit]

A fictional element and/or creative work that is not mentioned at the target. "Gorbino" does not appear at the target, nor does "Gorbino" appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less their quest appearing anywhere on Wikipedia; no quest is ever alluded to at the target page either. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • gorbino's quest is a fictional game and recurring... "thing" there, and probably maybe the setting of one of the levels
this is just like gorbino's quest. this is the gorbino's quest of redirects i'd keep if a mention can reasonably be made (probably in the plot section), or weak delete otherwise cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • gorbino's quest is found in cruelty squad and i wholeheartedly promise you anybody who form some bizarre reason searches for "gorbino's quest" on wikipedia is looking for the game's article Formaldehydemaster (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CRUFT + unmentioned. We're not the Cruelty Squad wiki, and pageviews reflect that-- this redirect gets practically no views whatsoever. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned enough in the game that it is worth looking up to determine if it is an actual game (possibly by the developer of Cruelty Squad). It turns out it is an entirely fictional element but the redirect is useful for a reader looking for that information. It'd be better if there were a mention in the target article, though. (I found and used that redirect back in 2021 in that context, and then added rcats to it afterwards.) (A redirect for just "Gorbino" would not be useful, though, and one does not currently exist either.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General OneFile[edit]

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

Gender and authoritarianism[edit]

Used to target a section, since removed. The article does not talk about gender, and is a WP:XY situation as it stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Nepal—Maoist[edit]

Apparently this specific political party's formal name at one point in the past included the em dash. Since readers are unlikely to be familiar with the way Nepalese political parties copy each other's names with minor pertubations this should be retargeted to the dab at Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is It is not a good idea to link to disambiguation pages at all. The Banner talk 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm?? Inline links to disambig pages from article space are usually incorrect, but I don't see any reason a redirect shouldn't point there. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Strathcona[edit]

No evidence the current target is the primary topic for this specific spelling, retarget to dab at Strathcona#Canadian electoral districts. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is Creating loads of links to disambiguation pages is not a good idea.The Banner talk 20:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0–20[edit]

Second target doesn't mention it at all. First target mentioned it in passing but not with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - the first target does list a few examples of teams finishing their season with a 0-20 record, but each one is in a league without a set number of games that each team plays (byes and such, or seasons shortened due to lockout/illness/insolvency) such that an 0-20 record isn't necessarily "winless" in the same way as, for example, an 0-16 record is for an NFL team. The second redirect has an edit summary on creation indicating that "0-20" is a Dutch nickname for Ajax Amsterdam (which was moved to the current target some time ago) but the article does not mention this at all, and I did not find anything in a Google search that suggests this is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0–1[edit]

Vague term - are either of these really the primary topic. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No idea about the latilactobacillus one, but 0-1 is a standard chess notation indicating that black won the match; the article describes this. I also have no idea how we would determine if that is the primary usage. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Both are expressions that could show up in all sorts of contexts, and the targets are far too specific (particularly the bacillus). No obvious alternative target. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The most obvious target from my perspective is zero–one law, but that's likely biased by my background. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. BD2412 T 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World – Seeks Worldwide Online Participatory Democracy[edit]

Not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storms of 2006–07[edit]

WP:XY * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom and per WP:REDLINK. We have articles on North American winters for every season starting with 2009–10 North American winter, while we only have coverage of winter weather for other regions when it's significantly out of character, or for specific weather events. Presumably the editors who have an interest in these articles will get to 2006-07 eventually. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 221 (Virginia 1923–1928)[edit]

Not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South African cricket team in India in 2021–22[edit]

Not the same thing, no real discussion at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present)[edit]

Not appropriate for a "2007-present" redirect to point to events from a decade ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baker–Unity Highway No. 13[edit]

"Baker–Unity Highway" is mentioned at both targets. "No. 13" is mentioned nowhere, leaving the context confused. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader–Ofer method[edit]

Not mentioned at either target. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster Kong[edit]

That section no longer exists. This character is mentioned exactly once in the whole article, and that mention is in passing. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, mentioned exactly once is still mentioned. I have changed the target section to the one that mentions the character. BD2412 T 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: One mention in passing while talking about a different character would disappoint anyone who was trying to look up information about this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would read it as that being everything of encyclopedic value that there is to say about the character. BD2412 T 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the one mention is fine, a minor character which is related to the character the redirect leads to. I have also added sources to that section just in case it is flagged as unsourced. CaptainGalaxy 18:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not sure dropping a reader into a search result with a mix of partial matches, this article, and Donkey Kong Country (TV series) (which the target section links to) is an improvement. Skynxnex (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp, this requires a full discussion. @JayCubby, L293D, Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe, Alalch E., Pppery, Matrix, Queen of Hearts, and NasssaNser: — pinging participants in the MfD discussion. BD2412 T 16:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Mentioned in the article. An alternative, non-standard, ostensibly wrong, rendition of the keyboard layout (going from top to bottom instead of from left to right), but it's a rendition. As a lexical item it exists. Not someting that we need to overthink. —Alalch E. 19:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cheap. (Fwiw, Cubby's now glocked and blocked, so I don't think you're gonna get anything from them.) Queen of ♡ | speak 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of bored people in work/school (I would know) end up just mashing random key combinations. Also, As Alalch pointed out, this is still a rendition of the QWERTY layout. Just look at the pageviews for Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm. Even if we divide that by 5, that's still ~30 page views/month, which is sizeable. Keep note that redirects are cheap. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would make sense if the qwerty keyboard were called the qaz keyboard instead, but Qaz is about a village in Iran with no mention. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie (disambiguation)[edit]

The set index is not a disambiguation. I can only find Dougie as a dance, and Dougie (given name), but I can't find the 3rd. If you can't find the 3rd one, will this page be deleted or kept? 176.42.17.150 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Dougie (given name) does not involve the dance, and does Dougie from Bluey count as 3rd? 176.42.17.150 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's enough content to create a disambiguation page, that's certainly fine. If not, the redirect should be kept because the target provides a disambiguation-like function. - Eureka Lott 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally avoid pointing Foo (disambiguation) titles to non-disambiguation pages. BD2412 T 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do point them at pages that "serve a disambiguation-like function" though, which anthroponymy pages do. Oops, I thought I removed this comment before saving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the separate disambiguation page at Dougie (disambiguation). It's the best solution out of no particularly good solutions. BD2412 T 17:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. If Dougie is the only title needing disambiguation that is not a person or character's name, which seems to be the case, it's silly to have nearly-identical disambiguation and anthroponymy pages that only differ by that one link. Just add a hatnote or see-also to the existing list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be treated as an average redirect from incorrect disambiguation. The correct disambiguator in the title "Dougie (given name)" is "given name", and the disambiguator "disambiguation" is incorrect. No need to add an irrelevant see also link or hatnote to the anthro list. Someone who is at "Foo (given name)" doesn't need to be directed to "Foo" that is not name-related (not a "related or comparable" topic).—Alalch E. 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Mars propellant plant[edit]

PROD'd by user:Ergzay, who states "Destination page no longer contains info regarding this and no page on Wikipedia exists for this. Best to return this to non-existence and let someone create it when it's needed." PROD can only be used on actual articles, so I'm moving this here as a courtesy. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware you couldn't use the template for this purpose. The documentation isn't very clear.
As to the matter at hand, even with the change in the redirect done by @N2e it still doesn't talk anything about a propellant plant. It looks like N2e did a bunch of editing to add some details quickly, but I'm not sure if this was just restoring old content that was previously deleted or not. It might get removed again given that that page has been pared down a ton from what it was because of low quality sourcing. Ergzay (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, propellant plant is mentioned and discussed at target. No other conflicting articles on Wikipedia according to nom, WP:CHEAP. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Interplanetary spaceflight#Propellant plant on a celestial body where the plant is actually discussed. A propellant plant is mentioned at the current target, but only in passing, and in such a manner that one would have to alreay know what it was to get anything useful from it (the kind of place a bluelink would be useful). A7V2 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That target only has a passing mention of "SpaceX propellant plant", although it does go more in depth with propellant plants there. Going to the SpaceX specific article might be preferable for people that include "SpaceX" in the search term, although I don't mind either option. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my interpretation (perhaps incorrect) that the section, while not written that well, was more or less entirely about the SpaceX plan. The last paragraph at least is entirely about it, not what I'd call a passing mention. A7V2 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SpaceX need for, and intent to place on Mars, propellant equipment is discussed at the target. There are clearly few details, but the notable SpaceX endeavor to build a Mars-capable large spacecraft is covered in hundreds of sources, and that spacecraft (now flying in a test program), will need the Mars-generated propellant to refill it on Mars making SpaceX discussion of the propellant facility also notable, as also shown by sources at the redirect target. N2e (talk) 10:56, 30 March 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) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hornsea88[edit]

Unattributed WP:COPIES of Hornsea Pottery bizarrely changed to be exactly 8888 bytes long. Flounder fillet (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "88" is neo-Nazi symbolism (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, I'm not going to elaborate further) but it was a bot that got it to that size, not the user. Someone who knows what they're doing could have engineered that, but this seems more likely to be coincidence. Anyway, this is speediable per G12 as an unattributed copy of an article, and probably as an actual copyvio as well judging by the initial edit being the full HTML markup of some other website. It's also speediable per G5 as a creation by a blocked user (creator is an obvious sock of HornseaOfficial), and let's throw in U5 (misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Television International Studios[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per the outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Paramount Television International Studios, where incoming links were the hurdle straight after a page move, I've given it enough time for the actual targets and/or rdr targets to be sorted out. The reason or rationale is the same as its/the original listing. Intrisit (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goulash (magazine)[edit]

This is a local(?) satirical(?) magazine published by a boarding school. Zero standalone notability, existed as two sentences that were BLAR'd immediately into the school it was published from. No mention of "goulash" anywhere at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention No redirect. To be honest, I doubt if this magazine is even real. Couldn't find anything in Jstor and Gscholar Ca talk to me! 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's probably real, honestly, but just so local that it has no electronic archives, as many a student magazine do 😅 Utopes (talk / cont) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Geometry Dash[edit]

Nothing about a "community" mentioned, very unlikely to be a search term. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muttering Idiot[edit]

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

Modmin[edit]

No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimoid[edit]

No mention of this novel feature(?), aspect? mentioned at the target article. Has three other mentions on Wikipedia in different contexts, also Mimoides exists with a number of subarticles on species. Not currently a useful redirect without context at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was linking it to the wrong page it was supposed to link to Aniara, not Solaris (novel).Mechachleopteryx (talk)
That might be typical, but it is the lack of mention of the word Mimoid in the article that made me make the redirect. If someone searchs for the term, they will be lead to the article. The solution is to mention them in the Article as they were a critical part of the book.
I understand that the book was written in Swedish, so other translators might have used a different word. If someone finds a different word used, but it is still unique to Aniara, then they could make a redirect to the article, where a standard term can be referred on.
If someone encounters the concept, it is highly likely that it is from Aniara and yet without the redirect, neither human nor bot would know that the word is associated with the book, and since as far as I know it is not associated with another novel. I had not fully completed reading the story yet when I made the link.
My intention is to add further discussion to the article, using the word, but I hoped the redirect would help others find the article. I also think it is worthy of an article in its own right, so if someone is really ambitious they can turn it into an article.
It doesn't refer to the moth. The reasons you are giving are why I made the redirect.
I don't think I need to make a list of all of the alien races and species that have a page on wikipedia. In the case where it doesn't refer to a dictionary word or a concept used in other novels, then it should be uncontroversial.
The moth name is pronounced meemo-eedays not mimoids, if someone types Mimoid I assume they are searching for the concept from Aniara, and it right now similarity search leads to you to the moth, when the page you are looking for is Aniara.
I think I might have directed it to the wrong page, it was supposed to link to Aniara not Solaris (novel).
Mechachleopteryx (talk)

Mental gymnastics[edit]

I had to do some serious mental gymnastics to wrap my head around why this redirect exists. Sure, some people may perform mental gymnastics when "they're uncomfortable from their beliefs being inconsistent and contradictory". A similar idea I feel could be people perform the act of running to get from Point A to Point B, although that doesn't make the "running" a good redirect to "pathfinding". It's a singular mean to the end, and not everyone that has cognitive dissonance is "performing mental gymnastics", and not everyone that does mental gymnastics has cognitive dissonance. Example: I'm fairly sure I'm performing mental gymnastics right now in an attempt to jump through the logical hoops that went into this redirect, and I don't think I'm too uncomfortable from cognitive dissonance. I believe I've come to understand why, although I don't think it's a great end-all-be-all redirect that takes people to the right location at 100% intentions every time. To me, I feel like Convergent thinking or Divergent thinking are what I would have associated mental gymnastics with, i.e. following along with someone's thought process jumping through hoops with twists and turns to an eventual endpoint. Also, "mental gymnastics" is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary Okmrman (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanoramaMaker[edit]

There is no information about a panorama maker at the target stub, much less a brand called PanoramaMaker. Not currently a helpful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TotalMedia Theatre[edit]

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]

MediaImpression[edit]

No mention of MediaImpression at the target page. Neither this, nor "ArcSoft MediaImpression" are useful redirects in the article's current state, as we have no information at the stub for this subtopic. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't remember creating the ArcSoft MediaImpression redirect, checking the history confirms that it was in the article at that time but was later removed.
Further checking backs up my guess that I most likely created it as an EXIF redirect for "software used".
In order to address this issue that is causing you concern, I have updated the article to mention it.
The redirect can now be left as-is or changed to ArcSoft#Products.
Ubcule (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manta (Unreal Tournament)[edit]

No character (?) that uses the name Manta appears at the target article; this does not appear to be a useful redirect in its current state. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man’s red fire / flower[edit]

Pretty confused by this redirect; neither the word "man's", nor the phrase "red fire" appear at the target article. Not sure why someone would type this instead of the very likely alternative of searching for just "Fire"; this title does not seem useful as a redirect. Neither have any links or mentions on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A man has fallen into a river in Lego City[edit]

A meme not mentioned at the target article. For anyone that wanted to read about Lego City, Lego City is the perfectly natural search term. Prefacing it with the meme line from the Lego City commercial implies an interest in the man falling into the river in Lego City. Unfortunately, the man is nowhere to be found in the river, much as this line is nowhere to be found in the article. Not a helpful redirect in the article's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making televsion[edit]

Implausible typo for the unmentioned search term of "Making television", which is already a roundabout way of reaching the target article. Errors in "avoided double redirects" are even more unlikely than errors in a page's actual title, and the misspelling coupled with the "making" verb pretense makes this too far out to salvage. Making television didn't use to exist, this probably could have been moved with redirect suppression as the original was initially aired as implausible in its former state. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me A World[edit]

There is no mention of this imprint at the target article. "Make" and "A World" are not ever mentioned at the target article. As it stands, people who specifically search for the imprint instead of the publishing house itself are left without any context to the phrase that they typed in. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maha (cat)[edit]

There is no cat called "Maha" discussed at the target. Moreover, there is no character called Maha discussed there, or at the associated List of .hack characters. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic air car[edit]

No mention of anything about a magnetic air car at the general-ish page for hybrid vehicles. As it stands, if people really wanted to search for hybrid vehicles, one would have used that search term outright. Specifying a magnetic air car and ending up at a page about hybrid vehicles in general is not a useful redirect for readers as it currently stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there's an article in the history about a theoretical compressed-air vehicle which used a magnetic motor to compress the air for propulsion, rather than needing to be refuelled with compressed air. It was not a hybrid vehicle by our definition as it had only one source of power for propulsion. It also was never built: there was some hype about it about 10 years ago (around the same age as the article) and some patents filed, but then it vanished. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fucktarded[edit]

Salt evasion of Fucktard. Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I disagree that this is salt evasion, there was 5 years between the deletion of the salted title and the creation of the new one, and the creator never edited the original. The original page was salted because it was only being used for vandalism, while the new title was created explicitly with a target in mind. However, the term should be removed from the target: the one source given that's not paywalled happens to mention the word, but with no context other than an odd story about gluten sensitivity. Wikipedia is not censored but we are also not offensive for no reason; maybe Fucktard could be recreated as a Wiktionary redirect (wikt:fucktard exists) but this modified title should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - A source that is paywalled can still be a valid source. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes of course it can, but I cannot verify it. My opinion is based on the information that I can verify. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance goal[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page. Tea2min (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiktionary redirect to wikt:insurance goal. There it's given in the context of soccer but it's the same meaning. Preferable to adding it back to the list of hockey terms since it also applies to other sports. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add back to the list, or delete per WP:REDYES for both the soccer/football and hockey terms. This search for "insurance goal on Wikipedia returns a surprising amount of articles that mention the phrase for its soccer/football and hockey uses, but surprisingly none of the results are articles that define the term. For this reason, the phrase seems notable enough in some regard to be included and defined either in an existent article or a standalone article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The term has not yet been added back to the list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey bag[edit]

Not mentioned anymore at target page Glossary of ice hockey terms. (Which used to say "a duffel bag for hockey equipment" but was cleaned up in 2011.) Tea2min (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Macko[edit]

Macko is not listed at the page for this shooting. What I will note, is that looking up "Nikolas Macko", the shooting almost didn't come up on the first page (was the very last result for me)" This might make sense as it took place in 2007, and as time progresses, older results are less likely to be promoted higher. But in any event, we have no content on this individual. In 2007, they attempted to fend off the shooting from taking place. But, these efforts are not described anywhere on the page or on Wikipedia, to my understanding. I don't think that this is a particularly useful redirect, in the article's current state. Just as Google displays a wide assortment of topics related to different "Nikolas Macko"s, if he isn't discussed in the article any longer, I don't think this redirect is necessary either. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be worth noting, this redirect was fully protected almost IMMEDIATELY after creation in 2007, and remained fully protected for another 17 years up until just a month ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Judging by the Google search results for "Nikolas Macko" "shooting", a mention could potentially be added to the article. What do you think? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Thomas (That's So Raven)[edit]