Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 15

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 15, 2024.

Winkepedia

[edit]

Implausible and WP:UNNATURAL (how does "ki" become "nke"?). Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why, but this mistake is surprisingly common: [1][2] Ca talk to me! 01:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Ca's sources 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Attested error with surprising commonality, and this redirect gets consistent enough use to justify keeping. As for how "ki" becomes "nke"? Linguistics is fascinating! My best guess would be that it probably has to do with the commonality, or lack thereof, of the /ɪki/ phoneme cluster in English. How many English words can you think of with this cluster? Right now, I struggle to come up with any off the top of my head, other than "icky" (not saying there are none, but they aren't at the forefront of my mind). Now how many can you think of with /nki/ or /nkə/? Instantly, I can name binky, winky, thinky, drinky... childish words, perhaps, but they're there ready in my head. Basically, /ɪki/ isn't often natural English... which makes sense since it was borrowed from another language in the first place! /nki/ or /nkə/ might be a bit more easy to find, even if it may be coded as child-directed speech. Note that this is just a guess, and is mostly irrelevant to my !vote-- the fact that it gets used and can be found as an error extensively in the wild is much more to the point. Fieari (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising And Setting Of The Sun

[edit]

Could refer to a sunrise also. Classic WP:XY. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miencraft

[edit]

Implausible typo. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a plausible typo according to its page views. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol protest

[edit]

Impossibly vague redirect. Could easily also refer to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, or the hundreds of other protests that happen around the world at various capitols. Delete.-1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be dabified? Do we have other articles on things called Capitol protests? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"capitol" is a generic word in this format, it is "capitol protest(s)" and not "protest(s) at the Capitol", so that would include such as the occupation of the building in Abkhazia right now; the Gunpowder Plot; Stop Line 3 protests; April 30 storming of the Michigan State Capitol; 2021 United States capitol protests; George Floyd protests in Utah; 2024 storming of the Kenyan Parliament; 2023–2024 Georgian protests; etc, etc. I don't think it would make a good disambig page. You could make a list article instead. List of protests near, at, surrounding, around, and, in, capitol, legislature, and, parliamentary, buildings -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I is a useful search term. Should be DAB or List target.Blethering Scot 23:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would prefer to dabify it. Seems a reasonable search term. Unsure if it passes NLIST but that could also be ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that there are wayyyy too many things that can be described as a "Capitol protest" that it becomes borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 190+ countries, 50+ US states plus Brazil, Canada, and Germany as federal governments, plus centuries of history including countries that no longer exist. It would be hard to maintain, and I doubt it would pass WP:NLIST. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"SD"

[edit]

WP:UNNATURAL redirect that if kept, should redirect to ND and SD. "Delete". -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headwaters Country Jam

[edit]

Not mentioned in target article or rest of Wikipedia. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 offseason

[edit]

Other sports have offseasons besides the NFL. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nueva Hampshire

[edit]

Seems to be a fail of WP:RLANG, but I am not too confident. Weak Delete? -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Half of the current U.S., including Dakotas, at some point were part of Spanish colonization of the Americas before Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. And given that USA doesn't have an official language and Spanish is the second most spoken, both redirects are justified. Web-julio (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Turkish

[edit]

nonsense redirect Golikom (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per this source, this source, and this source, "Turkish Turkish" is not a nonsense statement, but rather one used for categorical purposes.
We must also keep in mind that "English English", "French French", "German German", and "Spanish Spanish" all exist too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can hardly call these sources. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish so non Anatolian Turks aren't Turkish? What kind of statement is this? Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non sequitur. By that logic, French French would insult Quebec French speakers and other non-Metropolitan French speakers by calling them not French (which they aren't and neither is Turkish Turkish, that's why there is a second Turkish/French in the terms).
And to answer your previous question, whether I created them or not has no importance on whether or not Turkish Turkish should be kept/deleted. My sources are self-explanatory.
Here's two more sources I found with "Turkish Turkish" used in them. [4][5] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop giving example of other things. There is nothing like Turkish Turkish, and these are the "sources" you have hardly found. Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you contend that the governments of Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, Moscow, etc, are *not* reliable? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read what reliable are. Beshogur (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the existence of a term, not about an event. I would assume sources needed would be more lenient than those needed for an event's occurrence? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such term. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting wedge

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Over two years later, let's try this again: delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned and per WP:REDLINK per my comments in the previous discussion's nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Putting wedge" is definitely a term associated with golf clubs but since we don't really know where to mention it or what it really refers to, we might as well put it in the bin until the term has an actual definition. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tata (Persian King)

[edit]

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

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail You Down

[edit]

This is a bootleg recording of a show, but isn't mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete...weak only because there's some article history, but it's completely unsourced. If anyone has an issue with that, it can always be PRODed or sent to AFD. Only info about this I found is the occasional blog, bare listing in a niche book, etc, and I doubt this could sustain its own article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber dead

[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 Speedily deleted by Rsjaffe per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being killed in-universe in Zoolander 2, this redirect legitimately makes zero sense. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 as a WP:HOAX. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:17, 15 November 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).

W i k i p e d i a

[edit]

I wager nobody would think about typing a space between every letter. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D e l e t e p e r e v e r y o n e a b o v e . Y e s , t h i s r e d i r e c t i n d e e d f e e l s W P : U N N A T U R A L . 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

[edit]

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail because this is getting more deletion votes than I expected: According to our article Ganon, In the Japanese versions of the first three games, his name is anglicized as "Gannon", with the citations implying that the spelling "Gannon" was still being used in 1991 (the Wand of Gamelon came out in 1993). Both the Gamelon/Ganon and Ganon/Gannon mixups are both very plausible in my view, and there is no alternate article that this could possibly redirect to - user definitely wants to find the current target. BugGhost🦗👻 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"
However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?
I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too implausible of a mistake. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah, i think 5 delete votes to a keep, a really weak keep, and a slightly less weak keep would have been enough cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are based on the strength of arguments, not the strength of bolded !votes. As it happens, it is 3 to 5 numerically, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You may be right in principle but I'd avoid making a comment like this if you're WP:INVOLVED. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll also kind of disagree with that, since even the substantially weak keep vote that the less weak but still weak keep vote was based on argued that getting two names mixed up and misspelling said wrong name might not be all that plausible cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harapanahalli railway station

[edit]

There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article
Thank you :) Darshan Kavadi (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

[edit]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. The 9/11 attacks were not the only attacks to happen in 2001. JIP | Talk 08:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. While 9/11 was by far the most significant, the anthrax attacks are not to be discounted. Retargeting to the list of attacks in 2001 would still help those looking for the 9/11 article as well as feel consistent to those looking for other attacks. I think it's worth noting that there are fairly large attacks that happened in Angola, China, and Kashmir in 2001. From an internationalization perspective, I can easily see how Wikipedia users in those countries may be thinking of these attacks instead of 9/11 when trying to find "2001 attacks." Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I do think someone searching "2001 attacks" is likely to be looking for 9/11, but they'll find it on the new target page. As for "2001 terrorist attacks", this seems to me to be the most normal way to search for the material we have at List of terrorist incidents in 2001, a phrase I would probably not manage to come up with on my own (and I'm someone who is familiar with our title conventions in general). It's probably how I would start out by searching for that information on google. -- asilvering (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last three comments appear to be supportive of retargeting, but still gonna relist as overall discussions still appear to be somewhat mixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. I agree with the nominator, 9/11 is not the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linjian

[edit]

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per User:Sun8908. As far as I can tell, the primary topic is the town in Shandong, which we don't have an article for. I don't think this is a plausible enough search term for Linjiang, Linchen, Lin Jian, or Chen Linjian to be worth a disambiguation page. Best to let the search function do its job until an article about the town in Shandong is created. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ベトナム系オーストラリア人

[edit]

This makes even less sense. It's literally just Australians who are ethnically Vietnamese. Why would someone search this up in Japanese? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

サイゴン

[edit]

Japan and Vietnam have quite an interesting relationship to say the least, but it's probably not enough to warrant a redirect to one of its cities. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna Death

[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 Speedily deleted by Asilvering per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh what? She hasn't even died. Did she song a song about dying or something that warrants this redirect? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:07, 15 November 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).

人身売買

[edit]

WP:FORRED. Human trafficking occurs in every country so by that logic, we might as well make every translation of human trafficking be a redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

アメリカ合衆国国務省

[edit]

WP:FORRED TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teletubbies characters)

[edit]

Paratheses bracket at the end. Don't know if this can be speedied, but we probably all know the drill. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:UNNATURAL Ca talk to me! 09:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nueva York (desambiguación)

[edit]

a WP:FORRED for a disambiguation of all things TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiac detector

[edit]

no mention. google search does show similar devices though TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fishers Island, New York (old edit history)

[edit]

Three years after the target and an essentially duplicate article were merged into one page, this redirect was created from a move by Nyttend (who might want to weigh in on this matter) to rearrange and preserve the edit history of the latter (which is located at Fishers Island). However, since this rearrangement was completed back in 2010 and there's not much history located at this exact "old edit history" title, I'm not sure we still need this redirect. I'm leaning toward deletion here, but I'm open to other outcomes, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Licensing Letter

[edit]

Redirect title appears to be a company name that's loosely related? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial violence

[edit]

Only four articles currently make use of this redirect. In all four cases, "hate crime" would be a more appropriate target than "ethnic conflict". So I suggest retargeting the redirect to "hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with Racial violence and relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • tendency to Oppose. I looked at four of the roughly 30 articles that have the redirect racial violence. The legal formulation of hate crime seems to be fairly modern, from the 1980s - although per our article it's used retrospectively to interpret older events, and the article seems mostly to cover the legal aspects of the topic. Ethnic conflict seems to be a broader article including those hate crimes patterns that evolve into major (often intra-state) armed conflicts. The intended usage of racial violence seems to be somewhere in between and overlapping hate crime and ethnic conflict, in terms of the current state of the articles. I think that the different focus of the two articles is in some sense in singular - hate crime - versus ethnic conflict = plural hate crimes (pattern of many events on scales going up to 100s or millions of victims). Scale is a natural way to divide topics - when a set of hate crimes constitutes a crime against humanity or a genocide is not purely a case of scale, but scale clearly contributes. My feeling is that the relevance of racial violence as a link is to the broader pattern of multiple hate crimes, not so much individual ones. Caveat: I arbitrarily selected only four out of about 30 links - so this may misrepresent the more common usage. There is a see also link from ethnic conflict to hate crime, so a reader looking thoroughly may find that anyway. Boud (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding "Racial violence" to this discussion has confused the issue a little. My initial proposal was for "Racially motivated violence" to be retargeted to "Hate crime" because the usage seems more consistent with that definition. The case for "Racial violence" is much less clear. Certainly, scale plays a part. I recently created the redirect "Racially motivated attack". A racially motivated attack is a hate crime and an example of racially motivated violence, but doesn't necessarily imply ethnic conflict in the sense described by our article on that subject. An example is the murder of Stephen Lawrence: in that article, the phrase "racially motivated attack" is piped to "Hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blind tasting

[edit]

Ambiguous name, as you can do a blind tasting of any alcohol. Plausible search terms for this include Blind wine tasting and Beer tasting#Blind tasting, so I suggest converting this into a DAB page. No evidence that wine tasting is the primary topic for this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Blind taste test Has general information about blind tasting. Ca talk to me! 13:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Taste test? Or to Blind taste test?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pauletta Brupbakher

[edit]

Double typo, unlikely search term, originated from a Wikidata error apparently Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double error (on my part): turns out it wasn't a wikidata error, but rather the spelling of her name transliterated from Russian. Since she was Russian (ish), it makes sense that we had it that way originally. I've fixed the Wikidata item and added the Russian spelling to the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid redirect as it's from the transliteration of Russian. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephoscope

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible. A very small number of google hits, the top of which are about a podcast with this as a punny, but intentional name, a far more likely search attempt. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, google shows 5 sites using the spelling "stephoscope" incorrectly, and then the podcast - which has 4 reviews and 11 episodes, the last of which was published nearly 4 years ago. On other search engines it doesn't even appear on the first page. Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. BugGhost🦗👻 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. Doubtful. It's a reasonably common word, sounds different, and as I just noted, has a very small number of google hits, demonstrating implausibility (also note a whopping 0 occurrences in the ngrams corpora -- plausible misspellings usually show up there at least a little). Also note the creator of this has a history of making bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were 0 search engine results, then it would demonstrate implausibility. The fact there are results shows that it is a mistake people make. For this (and the other spelling based RFD's we are disagreeing on) I'm not saying we should rename the article or anything, just that I can imagine someone misspelling the word this way. If someone types "stephoscope" into the search bar, they are without a doubt attempting to get to Stethoscope - if we delete this redirect we gain nothing, and if we keep it literally nothing bad happens. I think crusades to delete harmless redirects are a waste of everyone's time, and are far more annoying than the redirects themselves. There is no benefit to deleting this. BugGhost🦗👻 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mongola

[edit]

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States (2008–2024)

[edit]

This redirect is the result of a bad page move but I don't think any CSD criteria applies to it. It is the result of an editor writing a new article that states that 2024 ushered a new era into American history. The article has now been moved to Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be using this as a search term? Is it generally considered that American history ended in 2024? Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No one is suggesting that American history ended in 2024, but 2008-2024 is covered in the target article. Ultimately, this is harmless. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a small issue in that, as noted, it isn't causing any harm, however I agree that nobody is likely to type in that specific string of characters in our search - what will most likely happen in such a case is that somebody will start typing in "History of the United States (2..." and then autocomplete options will present. If you do this now, you'll see both the (2004-present) and the (2004-2024), which in my eyes is confusing, especially if I'm a regular reader who doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on redirects. What's more, this does fall into crystal ball territory, and is a title that makes implications which readers might take as reinforcement that Wikipedia agrees with a particular viewpoint, something which I think would be more helpful to avoid. Any implications about the period demarcations of American history are best left to our sources. ASUKITE 01:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1

[edit]

Several redirects were created when I tried to move Lost (2004 TV series) to Lost (TV series) after closing an RM discussion, but did not notice that the talk page was move protected, causing me to attempt a manual round robin and probably botching something in the process. I am hoping this, along with all the redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) can be deleted, as opposed to filling somebody's noticeboard with several dozen CSDs.

If they're kept for some reason, I will go about retargeting them, but from the look of it none of them are actually linked to outside of the other redirects. They should either qualify for WP:G6 or one of the redirect criteria. ASUKITE 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are incoming links to some. Get them straightened out and I don't see why this can't then be speedied. (Or wait a day and a bot should clean up the 2xredirs...) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can take a look later tonight when I'm back home if the bot hasn't already gotten to them. ASUKITE 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_15&oldid=1258384033"