User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

WP:RFD
WP:RfD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	52	61
TfD	0	12	12
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	2	30	32
AfD	0	1	1

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:

Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut

WP:RGUIDE

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]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcut

WP:RHARMFUL

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]

Shortcuts

WP:RDELETE
WP:RDEL

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
Shortcut
- WP:RETURNTORED
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]

Shortcuts

WP:RKEEP
WP:RK

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in 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.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
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).
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

WP:RFDHOWTO

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.

Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this)

Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu.
Fill in the form and submit it.

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page ("Publish changes").
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.

STEP II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:Rfd2|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.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

STEP III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{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.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current list[edit]

June 7[edit]

Partisan movement[edit]

Partisan movement → Yugoslav Partisans (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Partisan or Partisan (military). My impression is that "Partisan movement" is a generic concept that does not imply Yugoslavia. For example, it could refer to Italian partisans, among others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Aeia[edit]

Aeia → Aria (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible typo. Aeia isn't mentioned in disambig page nor Aria. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

P♯[edit]

P♯ → P (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous target P Sharp was PRODded. No mention of anything related to P♯ in the current target. Either delete or retarget to ♯P. Nickps (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The redirect should have been {{Db-redirnone}}-ed after its original target was deleted ... if it weren't for a bot retargeting the redirect after the deleted article was converted to a redirect prior to being restored and deleted anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, do not retarget to ♯P. For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a likely or helpful misspelling of "♯P", given that the nominated redirect has already been proven to mean something specific, given the nominated redirect had a valid target with a title match previously. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. Frank Anchor 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Pelican Island (Western Australia) (disambiguation)[edit]

Pelican Island (Western Australia) (disambiguation) → Pelican Island#Australia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is only one article about a Penguin Island in Western Australia, Pelican Island (Kimberley coast), so delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are others but they may not be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Jog Road[edit]

Jog Road → Florida State Road 845 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Jog Road is not part of SR 845 and should not redirect there. Jog Road is a local road and not part of the state highway system, according to the official FDOT highway map for Palm Beach County.[1] –Dream out loud (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination against women[edit]

Discrimination against women → Sexism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shouldn't it point to misogyny where it initially was? LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone build an article for this based on discrimination against men? LEILA FERRAZ (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain they did; it's misogyny. Retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Misogyny. Misogyny is the dislike of women, so it only makes sense. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Office Shūji Abe[edit]

Office Shūji Abe → Shūji Abe (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Office Shuji Abe → Shūji Abe (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Shuji Abe Office" appears to be a thing, but I can find no reference to it anywhere as "Office Shuji Abe". Unlikely error. Rusalkii (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Likewise Office Shūji Abe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling with the other similar redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

GWR network[edit]

GWR network → Great Western Railway (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Where could this possibly lead to? The original GWR (current target), the modern one, GWR (disambiguation), Great Western Railway (disambiguation). Who knows... Otherwise, it can be deleted since its too ambiguaious JuniperChill (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a plausible search term that could refer to the network of multiple of the railway companies listed at Great Western Railway (disambiguation), possibly (but I don't know how likely) the network of flights operated by Aura Airlines and possibly the radio network of GWR Group. Either retargeting to the existing Great Western Railway (disambiguation) with a hatnote to one or both the other two, or a separate disambig page are the best for readers here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we should include Aura Airlines as while that is the ICAO airline code, I don't think anyone refers it to that (and also a relatively obscure airline), just as the code for Greater Anglia is officially (de jure) LE, but it's most commonly (de facto) shortened to GA instead. Maybe retarget to GWR instead? Since idk what should happen, we should wait for other users to see. JuniperChill (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
There are only two entries on the GWR page that could plausibly have networks and which do not appear on Great Western Railway (disambiguation) (the airline and the media group), but there are multiple railways that have networks which are listed on the longer-titled dab page but not at GWR. So if a separate dab page is not the chosen outcome, Great Western Railway (disambiguation) is, in my opinion, a better target than GWR. Obviously there is no need to take action before other people have had a chance to express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I (the nom) would Retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation) then. With a hatnote saying:

{{redirect|GWR network|the airline with the ICAO code|Aura Airlines|the radio network|GWR Group}} JuniperChill (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven.[edit]

Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. → Andrew Jackson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are numerous variations of what the subject apparently said on his death bed, with only some close to this topic title. That said, I can't see how two full sentences would ever be a useful search term and it isn't even the one used in the subject's article. I'd question it even if the quote was closer to what is most commonly reported. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As OP explains, it's a highly improbable search term. I'll add that nothing in article space links to it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete Agreed with the rationale presented by Bungle and Hydrangeans. --ARose Wolf 17:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. An article on this topic is clearly a problem in multiple ways.

With respect to where the sense of the quote probably came from:

The most authoritative secondary source is Remini. His in-depth three volume biography as saying: Where is my daughter and Marion, God will take care of you for me. I am my God’s. I belong to him, I go but a short time before you, and I want to meet you all in heaven, both white and black. Then a bit later...What is the matter with my Dear children, have I alarmed your Oh, do not cry—be good children and we will all meet in heaven.

Remini's primary source is a letter written by Andrew Jackson Jr. to Alfred Nicholsen, which was written 9 days after Andrew Jackson, Sr.'s death. A version of this letter is available in JSTOR from the 1947 Tennessee Historical Quarterly.

An early alternative is from Jackson's first biographer, Parton, who published his work in 1860, 15 years after Jackson's death. He quotes Hannah Jackson as stating: Be good children, and we will all meet in heaven. Wtfiv (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Refine to § "Later life and death (1837–1845)". I'm a bit confused by the rationales here. This is a verifiable variant of a quote that is mentioned in the article. What's implausible about that? Someone could recall the quote, start typing it in, and be led to this article either by search suggestions or results either on-wiki or on an external search engine. However, since the phrase won't come up if typed literatim into ctrl+f, this should be refined to the relevant section. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirects misusing the sharp symbol[edit]

♯YesAllWomen → YesAllWomen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
ELV1S: 30 ♯1 Hits → ELV1S: 30 No. 1 Hits (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
F♯*@bois → Fuccbois (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
$♯*! My Dad Says → $h*! My Dad Says (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
♯41 → 41 (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects use the Sharp symbol from Unicode to stand for the WP:FORBIDDEN character #. Not only is this semantically wrong, but it also doesn't help with search results because the two characters are not considered equivalent. Delete the above per WP:RFD#D8. If people think such redirects are needed, they can be recreated using the fullwidth ＃ instead. This is common practice as can be seen if one types the regular # in the search box and actually does what it's supposed to. Nickps (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Using the sharp symbol is at least exactly as plausible as using the full-width symbol. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's really not. Fullwidth # is a different glyph of the same symbol; sharp is an entirely different symbol that happens to look sort of similar. Search algorithms, even Wikipedia's, understand that: if you search for #41, for example, ♯41 doesn't appear in either the suggestions or the results; but if you search for, say, #MeToo, ＃MeToo shows up as expected in the suggestions. (It doesn't appear in the results because its redirect target does; I can't immediately find a redirect containing full-width # that doesn't point at a target that wouldn't also appear without the symbol.) It's like using ß and β and B interchangeably. —Cryptic 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
As Cryptic said, it's not. Not only does the fullwidth ＃ have the same semantic meaning as the regular ASCII # but the two characters are Unicode equivalent under NFKC and NFKD. This is not the case for the sharp symbol which normalizes to itself. This is why ＃ and ﹟ are basically interchangeable with # for searching but ♯, ⋕ and ⌗ are not. Nickps (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That's plausible for people who are familiar with all the technical details (and I'm not saying using fullwidth is implausible, it isn't) but when you have someone who is just searching for a symbol that looks about the same they are equally likely to choose ♯ as ＃. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no easy way to type ♯ on a keyboard. Searching for wide # only requires typing a regular # AFAIK. Викидим (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This is correct. You don't have to search for ＃. Searching for plain old easy-to-type shifted 3 (US) or unshifted tilde (UK) # finds redirects with the wide ＃ in their titles, just as if it weren't a forbidden character. It doesn't find titles with ♯. There's no expectation anyone would link to, much less actually type, either sort of redirect, but the fullwidth ones help searching and the sharp ones do not. —Cryptic 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that the fullwidth titles don't help - they do. I'm arguing that the sharp symbol is also useful - it is widely available in character maps and other places to copy and paste from. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, one can copy-and-paste the strange symbol (like I did) - but what could be the real-life purpose of doing it while searching for an easily available on the keyboard symbol #? Викидим (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Because they know # doesn't work, they know the sharp symbol exists and looks similar but don't know full-width symbols exist (this would be very common for many, probably most, musicians who are not familiar with east-Asian scripts and/or unicode) or they are copying from someone who used the sharp symbol for this or some other reason. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Redirects from titles with un-typeable characters make no sense, as no one would search for such strange glyphs. --Викидим (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I created the third title listed, and as a rule don't !vote on my own creations, but I will say that in general, the fact that MediaWiki can't handle # in titles is very counterintuitive to readers, and my position is that we should accommodate any plausible workaround that a reader might try. Redirects are cheap and there's no reason to make this particular impediment to navigation slightly more inconvenient. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Tazmin and don't see any benefit from deleting these. Rlendog (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Thryduulf, Tamzin, and Rlendog. The classic Qwerty keyboard isn't the only keyboard we need to worry about-- while it's hard (I wouldn't say impossible, but hard) to type the Sharp symbol on a standard Qwerty keyboard hooked up to a desktop or laptop computer, it could be far easier on mobile devices-- just like it's far easier to type diacritics or emoji on mobile compared to desktop.
As for "semantically wrong", I wouldn't say so-- the Sharp sign and Pound sign look the exact same, with the only difference in the font I'm using right now being that the Pound sign is tilted horizontally while the Sharp sign is tilted vertically. There are almost certainly fonts in use where they look even *more* identical. For even more proof of people conflating the two symbols, see C Sharp (programming language)-- the language's name when said aloud is invariably pronounced "C Sharp", but when typed out, it invariably is typed "C#", treating # and ♯ interchangeably. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI, typing emojis on Windows 10/11 is basically trivial. Now, C# is a bit of a special case because the name is specified by its ECMA standard to use a number sign, but at the same time, the number sign represents a sharp accidental. So, C# deliberately uses one symbol to stand in for the other. This is also why C♯ (programming language) exists. Using # to represent ♯ makes sense because, historically, people had a difficult time dealing with characters outside of ASCII and even today, the sharp and other Unicode characters like it are difficult to type. Going the other way around, however, doesn't feel justified the same way. Nickps (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
...While I don't currently have access to the emoji/symbol picker in Windows 11, in Windows 10 it does allow you to have access to a number of non-emoji symbols, too-- unfortunately, Sharp is not on that list, at least, not by default. If someone could check Windows 11, that'd be swell 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment The {{R from hashtag}} template does not recognise the sharp as a replacement for the number sign (see [2]) which is why I commented that template out on ♯YesAllWomen. If the RfD closes as keep, the Rcat will need to be updated. Nickps (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per User:Tamzin. Redirects are cheap, and it makes sense to go out of our way to help readers get around the problem with the # symbol. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Leaning delete as to all, as I can see these confusing readers into incorrect uses of the actual # symbol. BD2412 T 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CHEAP, potentially useful to someone getting around the forbidden character. Harmless and unambiguous. If the template needs to be updated, then we should do so. Fieari (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep all. Since the sharp symbol character does not have the same technical restrictions in titles and functionality on Wikipedia as the hash symbol (#), if an editor takes the effort to find a way to type the sharp symbol character and use it to locate an article title, then we should reward them with the article they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

----[edit]

---- → Keturi Brūkšniai (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per --#See also, another possible target is Horizontal rule. Is this really the primary topic? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. If I get time, I'll have to review my edits around this time as I don't remember why I created this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see why I created this now: Apparently, I saw the dashes in the article and created the redirect. I have no opinion on the fate of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment It's almost impossible to get useful search results for this, but I'd be surprised if either topic were primary. Maybe expanding the -- dab page to cover sequences of three and four hyphens too would work? Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to HTML element#hr Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
But that would be very confusing to someone searching, hyphens (of any number) are not mentioned there so there is no obvious connection with the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to -- and expand the dab page per Thryduulf. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to -- per Thryduulf, no clear primary topic. Toadspike [Talk] 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hirzayi[edit]

Hirzayi → Hirzai (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Recent implausible misnomer (I get zero Google search results for "hirzayi"). Move redirect created because of a recent reverted move by confirmed sock Al Shaykh Al Kasuri of blocked user SheryOfficial. The article was at this title for 1 hour and 20 minutes on 3 June, and the title did not previously exist as a redirect (see lack of entries on the deletion log). (Speedy deletion declined when I tagged it as G5, R3 with an explanation similar to the above.) SilverLocust 💬 06:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Cmt. I chose not to suppress creation of a redirect when restoring Hirzai to its previous title after the sock move because it's a plausible transliteration of Urdu: حرزایی. That said, I really don't care if this is kept or no. All this is kind of a waste of everyone's time, isn't it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I am of the view that redirects shouldn't exist merely because a very persistent banned user keeps trying to respell things. If there is evidence of anyone using this spelling before, then I would be happy to leave it. SilverLocust 💬 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll also add that this is covered by G3 ("redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism"). While the move may have seemed in good faith when you reverted it (i.e., before this sock was blocked), it certainly falls within the vandalism policy. Evading blocks (WP:Vandalism#Gaming the system) by using over 100 confirmed sockpuppets to move pages to "disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names" (WP:Vandalism#Page-move vandalism) while asserting blatantly false information (WP:Vandalism#Hoaxing vandalism) like that hirzayi is the "More common spelling" when in reality there is no trace of it actually being used (and heaps of examples of hirzai being used). SilverLocust 💬 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The social brain hypothesis[edit]

The social brain hypothesis → Dunbar's number (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary unlinked redirect with "the" (we have social brain hypothesis which I recently retargeted to a better article, and this one should just be deleted) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ford Pinto Pangra[edit]

Ford Pinto Pangra → Ford Pinto#Pinto Pangra (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No associated content at the target article. The Pinto Pangra was a low-production dealer conversion and not notable. Sable232 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Pangra, the article about the automobile. Sources cited in the article refer to it as the Ford Pinto Pangra. - Eureka Lott 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

June 6[edit]

Xi variant[edit]

Xi variant → SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Doesn’t exist. See AP News, the New York Times, Reuters, CNN, et cetera. 48JCL TALK 20:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Article With those sources, it actually seems notable, having an article "They skipped it" seems justified. And maybe there are conspiracy theories that could be discussed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - As per comments on the similar "Nu variant" rfd discussion, there is no Xi variant of SARS-CoV-2, and the phrase "Xi variant" does not indicate the searcher is looking for anything related to covid. Having a "Xi variant → SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant" redirect also gives unnecessary fodder to conspiracy theorists who could misinterpret "Xi" as a last name rather than a Greek letter, something that isn't in Wikipedia's interest. BugGhost 🪲👻 13:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Variants of SARS-CoV-2#Nomenclature per my comment at the other RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Science Update[edit]

Science Update → American Association for the Advancement of Science (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be related to a website called Science Update. Their about page states that they are an "re-incarnation" of an AAAS-produced radio show of the same name. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Few minutes of searching around on old newspapers in newspapers.com did not give anything substantial, though I did find a Boston Globe Issue. With the Common Sense Media source, a mention might be able to be added. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Elephant population[edit]

Elephant population → Elephant#Status (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Procedural nomination for speedy deletion candidate, as requested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 17. jp×g 🗯️ 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep Simple search term leads to a section that has detailed information about the search term. This is textbook redirect usage. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Ca. Someone searching for "Elephant population" which is unquestionably something people will search Wikipedia for, will find the information at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
List of elephant species by population is a possible retarget. —Cryptic 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a see-also link to that page at the current target as it's relevant wherever this targets. I'm happy with either target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep as a very reasonable search term. Either the current target or List of elephant species by population is acceptable. Frank Anchor 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to List of elephant species by population, as redirects to more specific pages are usually preferable to redirects to sections of more general pages. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep or Retarget, Lean Keep - List of elephant species by population is in the section hatnote, which is why I'd lean towards just keeping it... but that link does provide more information than the section, so I can see the argument for just skipping straight to the point. Either way is fine by me, to be honest, and my preference for keep is VERY slight. Fieari (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep: If it goes to the list, someone will see "populations of Proboscidean species" and could get very confused, whereas the prose and elephant pictures under the Status section are clearly relevant. Also I would add "R with possibilities" as I could see the section expanding and describing the individual populations with prose - the "notes" column in the list article is quite detailed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Under the influence of alcohol[edit]

Under the influence of alcohol → Alcohol intoxication (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely search query Mondtaler (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep Redirects are cheap, and this is unambiguous. Also, it doesn't seem like an unlikely search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to Under the influence. It got 15 views last year, not sure whether that is low or high but at least it is not zero. The name seems based on shortening driving under the influence of alcohol, so under the influence is a better target. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to Under the influence (a dab page) per Mathnerd314159. Someone using this is equally likely to be looking for Alcohol intoxication or Driving under the influence, both of which are listed there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to DAB page as per Mathnerd and Thryduulf, while also tagging as Incomplete Disambiguation. I will admit, I was about to recommend that the redirect be kept as per Presidentman before I saw Thryduulf note that Under the influence was a DAB page. That said, even if you take "...of alcohol" as a disambiguator, that still leaves Alcohol intoxication and Driving under the influence as potential hits, both of which are near the top of the DAB page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I normally like DABs as redirect targets, but this one has so many entries for unrelated albums and intoxication by means other than alcohol that I feel being targeted here might cause WP:SURPRISE. The trouble is that this really does have two potential targets: Alcohol intoxication or Driving under the influence, both of which are located at that DAB amidst everything else... but again, I'm worried that the weight of the "everything else" could cause confusion. Does anyone else think a mini-DAB with just those two links would be okay, or am I impugning the intelligence of potential wikipedia users by thinking they'd get confused here? Fieari (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the thing is, both of the potential targets here are at the very top of the Under the influence DAB, separated by exactly one non-alcohol result (Altered state of consciousness, and even that DOES have information pertaining to alcohol-- after all, ethanol itself IS a drug). Add on the fact that I'm fairly certain most of the music/media links are using "Under the Influence" as a shorthand for "Under the Influence of Alcohol", and I'd say that it shouldn't cause too much confusion or surprise. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Xavier Ribes[edit]

Xavier Ribes → Web 2.0 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This person has not been mentioned in the target since November 2008, though the article briefly quoted him at the time of the redirect's creation. No mention in other articles either. I would suggest deleting it per WP:RETURNTORED. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not mentioned anywhere on en.wp (or other projects from what the search engine is showing me). Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:SURPRISE, we have no information currently on this person. I make no comment on his notability, but if he is notable, WP:REDLINKing him would be useful to encourage article creation. Fieari (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - per above comments BugGhost 🪲👻 13:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Electric Turbo[edit]

Electric Turbo → Porsche Taycan (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Porsche Taycan 'Turbo' models don't actually have a turbocharger, it's just a namesake for a higher-performance model of a car. In that sense, it's kinda misleading. I did a google search, and 'electric turbo' doesn't seem to be a common nickname for the Taycan Turbo models either. Now, looking at retarget options, there does exist electric supercharger (I know technically there's no such thing as an "electric turbo" but that's what {{R from incorrect name}} is for), but having a look at that article, there also exists electrically-assisted turbocharger, so I'm not sure where to retarget it to. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambig between electrically-assisted turbocharger and electric supercharger. The term seems to be used for both. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonius connector[edit]

Nonius connector → Vernier scale#Nonius connector (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be deleted. It was created by user:Matthiaspaul in June 2020 to point at a section heading which does not exist now and never did exist in the past. The article Vernier scale does not explain anywhere what "nonius connector" means. The only page linking to this redirect is the see also section of Nonius (device), which is more relevant than anything currently at Vernier scale but also does not explain what "nonius connector" means. This redirect, beyond being entirely unhelpful, is actively confusing to readers, and it should be deleted to turn the link nonius connector red, in case someone who knows what this is and cares about it will see that an article is needed. –jacobolus (t) 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete No mention in the article. It is actively confusing since Nonius connector doesn't apppear to be the one that is described in the article. A google search suggests it is related to both articles, since there is no mention is either, it should be deleted. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep and write something about it. As Ca pointed out, a Nonius connector is related to both articles and we currently don't have any description of it in either of them. That's bad, because as an encyclopedia it is obvious that we should have it covered. That's why I parked an anchor for it and a link in the Vernier scale article (which looked like the most closely related topic back then) to define a location where editors could start collecting contents about it. At least, the redirect allows to link to the topic already and it enables reverse lookup, that is, it is building infrastructure and creating a momentum for future contents to accumulate. That's not confusing at all. Eventually, the accumulated contents should be moved into a dedicated article, but I don't know enough about it to start it myself.

Trying to use red links to encourage users to write an article about something is a long failed concept (it worked in the beginnings of this project, but not now, as most mainstream and easy topics are at least rudimentarily covered and we have to add the more special topics) because it requires someone to come along who knows a lot about a topic already, and has the time and dedication to research it further and write an article about it, find sources, etc. This is much more unlikely to happen than just adding some small bit of information about a topic the particular editor happens to know already. In particular red links "created" by deletion almost always (except for mainstream topics) means that we will never again have a topic covered, because deletion discussions draw away contributors. It leaves a scar, basically it is a lost opportunity, a failure in our goal to create a comprehensive encyclopedia for everyone covering the knowledge of the world, past and present. What works much better is to redirect missing topics to articles most closely related for bits of information to accumulate there over time until enough stuff has accumulated to split it out into a dedicated article. And this is what should happen here as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you can't make a stub about it at this moment in time then it should stay as a red link. Ignoring your rant, a stub is better than a redirect that serves no purpose. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The term cannot be found in Google Scholar or Google Books. Search in Google returns mostly information about some mounting hardware for suspended ceilings. Although the word "vernier" is used for ceiling applications, too, this meaning has nothing to do with the vernier scale. The redirect is incredibly confusing. --Викидим (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you haven't searched enough. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have meanwhile added a small section about Nonius connectors to the target article. There's much more to it. Feel free to flesh it out further or add other applications so that it can become an article on its own in the future. The redirect deletion discussion, however, is bogus now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Your addition is deeply problematic and I'm really considering just reverting. WP:UGC says "a wikilink is not a reliable source". This also applies to dewiki. You can't just cite add unsourced claims to an article and then consider the matter closed. Nickps (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, I've now reverted it as unsourced. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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! 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete: After checking some LLMs (since 'nonius connector' isn't recorded in dictionaries) it seems Nonius is used instead of Vernier in some languages (e.g. German). For example Google translates the article de:Noniusverbinder with the title "Vernier connector". Such a thing does exist, for example part 101646 here is listed as "Nonius-Verbinder" in German and "Vernier connector" in English. Since the correct target vernier connector doesn't exist, it can be deleted. Or, if matthiaspaul ninja-edits a new article into existence, it can be retargeted, but I didn't see sufficient material even on vernier connectors to establish notability. There is this patent but it is just an autotranslation of the German. Even the German wiki article is unsourced, and similarly I couldn't find any German sources besides part catalogues. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Alcohol expectations" and "Alcohol expectancies"[edit]

Alcohol expectations → Alcoholic beverage#Alcohol expectations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Alcohol expectancies → Alcoholic beverage#Alcohol expectations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neither of these are mentioned in the target article, leaving the redirects unclear in what they refer to. (However, Alcohol expectancies is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Alcohol expectancies?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Alcohol and health#Alcohol expectations: The last rev of Alcohol expectancies with content is [3], it looks pretty decent for 2006-era actually, sources and everything. I followed it, it got moved to Drinking culture then to Alcoholic beverage then to Alcohol and health#Alcohol expectations where it is today. So it is necessary to preserve it for attribution, and also it seems reasonable to target both redirects there. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect both to Alcohol and health#Alcohol expectations - Thanks for tracking it down, Mathnerd! Fieari (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Older[edit]

Old business[edit]