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.
Keep as it is. Motor vehicle encompasses far more than just automobiles. Motorcycles and busses are motor vehicles, but they are not automobiles. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Motor vehicle is better. Some people think 'automobile' is restricted to just passenger cars but it is also often applied to smaller vans, smaller pickup trucks, mini-buses, larger vans, larger pickup trucks and sometimes even to larger road vehicles. There is no universal, formal definition of what is or is not an automobile. Stepho talk 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Car article even has a section on defining automobile. It is more useful search result for that instead of motor vehicles which include boats. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term 'automobile' usually refers to cars specifically and not other vehicles that happen to be on land. As well, the current article for 'car' has helpful links at the top of the page that address the issue of readers possibly looking for other things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Car article is clearly more relevant than that motor vehicle article for this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By far the commonest meaning is just a car, not vans, trucks, buses or any other form of motor vehicle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Incoming links generally refer to the "car" meaning and I think most people searching the term "automobile" are looking for the content at car. Deli nk (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget - per WP:R#KEEP point 5, some people clearly find this useful. Yes they are a very low level team, but it does no harm. If there became a time where Sport in Plymouth was gummed up with hundreds of little sentences about very small clubs with redirects pointing there then perhaps there would be a reason to remove from the sport article and delete the redirects for the sake of cleaning up the main article, but that is not the case now and is therefore not a valid argument to delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Non-notable football club redirecting to the league they currently play in. Would have to be updated every time the club gets promoted or relegated, and target article contains zero information on the club anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tells the searcher the league they are in and the division they are in. NN so no WP:RED benefits. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A benefit of a redlink is that you can tell immediately that it's a non-notable club which has never played at a notable level. All current links to the club are in articles which already explain which league they're in, such as individual season articles. Highly likely not to be updated accurately, therefore giving false information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is exactly the opposite. WP:RED says "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable.". Red links encourage article creation; redirects discourage article creation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you expect people to give an opinion if the article has been redirected? Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too low level, doesn't merit a redirect. GiantSnowman 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"too low level, doesn't merit a redirect" is not a policy ground for deletion. Please see WP:RHARMFUL. No harm here ergo we keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: No; not only is WP:N not key it is irrelevant. Redirects are simply search terms and notability guidelines are not applicable. It is routine to redirect nn entities to somewhere where there is something about them. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For this delete !vote to be considered by the closing amin you need to specify a policy-based rationale and "per Bretonbanquet" is not that because they haven't either. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to retarget — Iadmc♫talk 10:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope everyone advocating adding a sourced sentence about this non-notable club in another article will be happy to advocate it for the other hundred or so redirects for non-notable clubs, created by the same editor. The reason these clubs are not notable is intertwined with the fact that obtaining reliable sources for them is very difficult. Plus, by this token, every non-notable club in the country should have a redirect, and there are literally thousands. This is just creating a lot of work for no useful purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is not relevant here, then I can create a redirect for every Saturday and Sunday League pub football team in Plymouth, put a sentence about it at Sport in Plymouth#Team sports and that would be OK? There has to be a cut-off point for talking about extremely minor football clubs in Wikipedia articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be comprehensively missing the point. To justify deletion a policy-based rationale needs to be provided and you have not provided one. Please read WP:RFD. Notability has no relevance to the existencce of redirects - as I state above It is routine to redirect nn entities to somewhere where there is something about them. Also it does not help your case by making silly extensions. This is not a "Saturday and Sunday League pub football team" it is a team in the national league structure, significant enough to have features in the Plmouth press. It is not notable, or it would have its own article but it is as significant as many of the other sporting teams mentioned in the article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's you that is missing the point. We have a non-notable football club and you are advocating redirecting the zero searchers looking for it to an article "where there is something about them". There are no articles with anything about them. You're advocating writing something about them somewhere in order to make sense of your rationale for changing the redirect. If you think what I said is a "silly extension", it's because you can't answer the question. All Saturday teams (including pub teams) are in the national league structure, and there are thousands of them. All of them are covered by local press. What you are advocating will set a precedent for all and any of them to be inserted (probably unsourced) in articles about sport in whatever area. I suggest it is prudent to avoid this by using notability criteria to control the number of Level 11-15 football teams pointlessly mentioned here, there and everywhere. If you want a policy-based rationale, how about #10 - the club technically could be the subject of an article, providing it passed WP:GNG, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject (and it still won't even after someone has added a sentence about it). There are dozens of redirects like this one waiting to be dealt with in the same way if you fancy it. As I say, a lot of work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is sourced information about this football team in the target article. The mention there is proportionate and on-topic for the article. If there are thousands of other similar teams about which sourced information can be added to a relevant article then that information should be added. This is completely independent of whether there should be a redirect to them, but if they are the primary topic for a given title and there is information about them in the target article then I see absolutely no reason why redirects should not be created. In the case of this redirect, it got 28 human views in the 30 days prior to this nomination (a lot more than the 0 you claim) and indicates that people are searching for this club. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the short sentence added after this RfD, naming their ground? That's it? And you're advocating adding a similar (almost useless) sentence about thousands of other teams. Well, we can start with all the other redirects created by the same editor. 28 views, several of which were me - well, that figure is at least higher than their average attendance. I wonder if any of those people would have been satisfied by being told nothing other than where the team play. Oak Villa doesn't even have a website. This is adding trivia and no doubt ultimately, fancruft, to articles just for the sake of protecting a redirect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was an attempt to define popcore (Pop-punk + hardcore = popcore — subgenre ed) [1], but this is getting very WP:XY and without sourced definitions at any of the targets, this isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Alternative rock. Punk is mentioned throughout the article, which posits a close connection between alt-rock and punk. It stands to reason that some people would use "alt-punk" to refer to something different, but I don't know if we could describe such a thing by Wikipedia standards. I think this may be close enough. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:XY it seems like it could go either way. There are news articles that use the term but the bands they reference aren't detailed in any way in either article so it wouldn't help the reader. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to refer to 'alternative rock incorporating punk influences', which is something that may deserve its own detailed mentioning at 'alternative rock' at some point. Still, I agree with the arguments above. We can just scrub the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. There are a few references in the article about this genre originating in California, but no citing of the use of the redirect as a term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Punk rock in California. I suppose the term may be used as a quasi-genre label, describing bands not from California with similar sounds, but this is too close a connection to not just retarget. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD useful search News articles refer to this for bands that come from California [2]AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Punk rock in California. I'm also seeing this used by various publications, even including the likes of Billboard, and so the redirect should be changed rather than just deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No prejudice against recreation if the connection can be clarified via a sourced mention. --Tavix(talk) 02:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Anything claiming to be punk in any way could be labeled "pseudo-punk" as a pejorative. This seems like a best guess, and the most logical type of not-mentioned redirect is a straight synonym. That might be going too far here, though. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Punk_ideologies#Criticism_of_punk_ideologies although that section has a "no sources" tag. If the pop punk or punk rock articles have some similar criticism history section that would be useful there too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC) updated 17:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first as invalid (or at least too vague and uncited) alternative to "hardcore pop punk". Second might actually be a valid term: Google search for "Hardcore pop punk" though I doubt it., so Provisional delete — Iadmc♫talk 21:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All sorts of XY's here plus there are hardcore genres that are not punk. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 13:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is currently mentioned once in the target article, but the phrase is not defined. Due to this issue, readers trying to find did civic information via this redirect will be led to no specific information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethis search ignores the word contemporary after the first non-WP hit so it doesn't appear to be a subgenre of pop punk. The YouTube hit is likely using that word in its literal sense, anyway. And define "contemporary"... — Iadmc♫talk 21:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because pop punk makes it into Adult Comtemporary charts doesn't make it Contemporary Pop Punk. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the obvious consensus and backlog. --Tavix(talk) 02:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb actually shows two unreleased films with this name. A retargeting option may be Contractor, a disambiguation that lists another two films titled "Contractor" (note the singular), but I'm unsure if this would be a plausible redirect for those films. --Tavix(talk) 19:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such film mentioned in article (and a film called Contractor has a different title to one called Contractors so retarget no valid, IMO) — Iadmc♫talk 20:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No mention of it at Steve Pink's article, not even a list of upcoming projects in his name [3] which would attract these redirects. No mention of it at Relativity Media, Bob Fisher (screenwriter), or David Hemingson. Wait until the film is produced. Otherwise it's just an idea. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect should point to relevant encyclopedic content. None exists in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the obvious consensus and backlog. --Tavix(talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such film mentioned in article — Iadmc♫talk 20:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's got a name on it by screenplay but no useful information or a source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect should point to relevant encyclopedic content. None exists in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as meaningless nonsense — Iadmc♫talk 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. Could refer to a mall rat. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. However, in the infobox, it seems that a related music genre is bubblegum pop. However, the redirect in its current state and without a mention in its target article makes it seem like a WP:OR mashup of terms. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well what do ya know... "Bubblegum punk". last.fm. And I thought the term was so contradictory it hurt... Anyway, delete as not necessarily being an alternate name for Pop rock (no claim in article) — Iadmc♫talk 18:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete XY. Not discussed in any of the articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What-what? False-punk? Well, its a plausible alternate name for pop punk. But no claim of that in article: Delete — Iadmc♫talk 19:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Retarget to Punk_ideologies#Criticism_of_punk_ideologies this seems to apply more to clothing and style than to music, but without news article sources or Wikipedia sections to detail this, there isn't much of a target. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --Tavix(talk) 18:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arch- is a standard (though not overwhelmingly common) English prefix (archenemy, arch-nemesis, etc.), and anyone hearing of Arch Linux for the first time is apt to think the first part of the name is that prefix. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very plausible for someone to not remember whether something is styled with a hyphen or space in this sort of situation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to imagine someone thinking it was hyphenated in the first place, note that the search box largely ignores hyphens, e.g. search "Linux-Mint" and you will end up at the correct article. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with Champion that the search engine would do its job just fine if these redirects get deleted. Nevertheless, they do make it a bit easier for readers to reach the target, and as the mishyphenation here is a fairly easy mistake to make, they are plausible and they do receive some page views (a few dozen a year isn't a great number but it's definitely above the threshold for reader utility). – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้ is unlikely to be typed in any time soon on en:WP — Iadmc♫talk 08:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add: the target article Koh Mai Si Airport was been PRODded on 13 January 2017. I have only just noticed. Therefore, my request may become moot very soon (perWP:G8) unless the Prod is challenged — Iadmc♫talk 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The typical practice at RfD is to either assume the target will continue to exist until it doesn't or withdraw the nomination until the outcome for the target is clear, renominating if the article is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i wouldn't even know where to start! --Domdeparis (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the name of the subject in the native language (Thai) and so is quite likely to be searched for by people who do know how to type Thai characters and/or those who can copy and paste. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that most foreign-script redirects are more trouble than they're worth, but the established practice (see WP:RFOREIGN) has been to keep them. – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn until the target's PROD is dealt with — Iadmc♫talk 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Target deleted: CSD #G8 therefore applies. I did close this to add CSD to page but I was reverted — Iadmc♫talk 15:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iadmc: Yes, the "withdraw" close was reverted since the CSD of the redirect hasn't been carried out, and this discussion has contradicting comments/votes. If/when the nominated redirect gets deleted (probably via WP:G8), then this discussion can be closed without "withdraw" conflicts. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Ah. This was a double redirect... I forgot that. you've fixed that and speedied the original target. I've speedied the final target so this should be resolved very soon. Thanks for that! I closed so I could use Twinkle to add the CSD but you've sorted that issue too. Again, thanks — Iadmc♫talk 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --Tavix(talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from non-zoology-expert since a page can "redirect only to" precisely one article, then the rationale is incorrect. C. elongata is a disambiguation page which contains more articles and therefore more species—unless we need D. Elongata, E. Elongata, etc (or whatever), in which case Elongata itself should be the dab page) — Iadmc♫talk 08:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig the various species known as Elongata. I know such a page was deleted in 2009 but I'm sure we have others dating from more recently than that which are regarded as good disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I wouldn't mind it if someone builds a dab page, but really, is any of the 146 species known simply as "Elongata"? Noting that this is not a genus name. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the explanations at the AfD linked in the nomination. There doesn't appear to be anything that could be referred to using the bare species epithet "Elongata". – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Species names don't stand alone without a genus name, and the genus provides the context needed to disambiguate. Alternatively, redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, which has been the fate for several other redirects and disambiguation pages related to species names (but my preference is deletion). Plantdrew (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. I've read through this entire discussion several times now, over at least three days, and that's perhaps the only "obvious" conclusion that can be made here. That being said, I've gleaned several generalities from this discussion that can be used to figure out what has transpired and, perhaps more importantly, where to go from here:
The question presented was a binary one, whether "Tylenol" should redirect to paracetamol or Tylenol (brand) (which several participants correctly pointed out that would result in Tylenol (brand) being moved to Tylenol).
Most opinions were split along that binary, with all participants but one expressing an opinion corresponding with one of those two options. While recognizing that this discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers by my count are evenly split 10-10-1.
A major argument was advanced by both sides to the effect of: "this is what readers are looking for when they search 'Tylenol'". This is an appeal to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, particularly the "primary topic in regards to usage." The way this is typically measured is via page view tools. However, it has been argued that page views aren't definitive in this case (see the discussion below CFCF (aka Carl Fredrik)'s !vote).
Another main argument I noticed in favor of keeping "Tylenol" as a redirect to paracetamol is the fact that it's standard practice to redirect brand names to the generic name. Reasons for doing so include consistency and to discourage non-notable brand articles from developing.
Those in favor of moving Tylenol (brand) over the redirect largely acknowledged this standard practice, but argued that "Tylenol" should be an exception. Reasons for doing so include the notability of "Tylenol" as a brand name and its history and prominence.
Finally, arguments in favor of converting "Tylenol" to a disambiguation page have been considered. It was suggested as a compromise simply due to the fact that it's a middle ground between the two main positions. Expanding upon that, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to resolv(e) conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous (WP:D, first sentence).
Several participants noted that they'd like to see a specific guideline either created or clarified to address this case and those like it. Some feel that the MoS pages (eg: WP:MEDMOS & WP:PHARMMOS) don't adequately cover that "standard practice" and/or want clarity as to when a brand name should redirect to a generic name (eg: always? when a brand name isn't notable? etc.) This includes clarifying (an) existing section(s) or creating (a) new section(s) to the aforementioned MoS pages.
Normally, when a discussion is closed as "no consensus", it's generally best practice to revert to the status quo ante. However, the status quo ante has been disputed in this discussion (see discussion below Steel1943's !vote), making it difficult to figure out what to default to.
Now it's time to put all this together and figure out a solution. Because of an unclear status quo ante (8), I don't feel comfortable closing this as "do nothing" without good reason. However, both sides made strong arguments and I don't see either side having an advantage (3-5). Since the numbers were also equal (2), I can't even use that as a "tiebreaker", if you will. So, I'm considering the crux of the question, which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (3). The question of "long-term significance" was fairly well addressed but the question of "usage" remains cloudy. Therefore, I've devised a solution that is intended to clarify the "usage" question while also appealing to the argument that a disambiguation page should be used as a compromise (6). I'm going to convert "Tylenol" to a disambiguation page, but instead of linking directly to Tylenol (brand) and Paracetamol, I'm going to pipe the links though "test redirects" that are implausible search terms. That way, we can hopefully be satisfied going forward that those redirects are being used solely from the disambiguation page and we can directly compare the page view stats of those two redirects in order to determine which is used more. I anticipate that the empirical evidence gathered from this experiment will help determine whether a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists in a future discussion.
I'd recommend those who have participated here to come together and workshop a guideline solution that can be used from here on out (7). I'd also like to caution that I do not intend for this decision to be binding (ie: to create a status quo or precedent). Instead, I'd like for a guideline to be decided upon by involved parties that can and should be used instead. If that fails to come together, I'd invite anyone who is unhappy with this set-up to initiate an RfC asking if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Tylenol" and what would happen with the title if there is one (eg: redirect to paracetamol, move the brand name to the base title, etc.). I'd recommend waiting at least six months to give ample time for the page view tool to gather data on usage.
Finally, I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. Despite strong opinions on both sides, this discussion has remained civil, and I appreciate and admire when that is able to happen. Respectfully, --Tavix(talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should this target Tylenol (brand) or paracetamol (the active ingredient; commonly known as acetaminophen)? Disambiguation would become unnecessary if this targeted to the brand.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep status quo Standard practice is to redirect brands to the generic name. This is one of the ways we deal with the mountain a spam that occurs. Even though Tylenol is one of the most famous brands IMO we should still follow this rule consistently to be fair for all involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather retarget Tylenol to Tylenol (brand) per the principle of least WP:SURPRISE, and then get rid of the dab, i.e. move over redirect. In my opinion Doc James' comment makes sense, but only if the brand itself would have had no article of its own, which is not the case here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*retarget brand to generic name--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep status quo(I apologize, and thank for heads up HyperGaruda...long night) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs)
Retarget to "Tylenol (brand)". While Doc James is right to point out that the default position is to redirect brand names to the generic drug, the Tylenol brand is unusual in that it is notable enough to have its own article independent of the "Paracetamol" article. Axl¤[Talk] 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Generic and Formalize Guideline - This is a really challenging question. Seems like WP:COMMONNAME would be the guiding policy here, but WP:COMMONNAME is hard to apply to drugs, because brandnames often have regional differences, and the common name in scholarly work is often different from other sources. My sense is that WP:COMMONNAME is so hard to apply to this subject that we should just WP:IGNOREALLRULES and call out drug naming as an exception to the WP:COMMONNAME rule. I propose we formalize the "standard practice" User:Doc James calls out in a Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(drugs) guideline. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: - Hmmmm... Is it normal to have a naming convention guideline like that on a project page? Seems hidden. Might propose this be moved. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is normal or not. WP:MED (which is closely related with WP:PHARM) is the second most active project after WP:MILHIST. MilHist also has a fairly extensive style guideline[5] with a large section on naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: - Good note on the MILHIST style guide. I'm a tad confused why we'd have all of these distinct naming guideline pages, if we're going to have similar sets of rules show up on individual project pages. Seems like potential rule redundancy. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my last comment, I guess I'm confused why these rules are sometimes stand-alone guidelines and sometimes incorporated into Project Style guides. NickCT (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, it's more complicated than that. In theory, a WikiProject's style page needs a proper community WP:PROPOSAL before being adopted. One of the main points of that process is to make sure that we're not giving contradictory requirements (e.g., WikiProject Chemistry says to use {{Infobox chemical}}, and WP:PHARM says to use {{Infobox drug}}, and it's difficult to do both). In this instance, it may also be redundant, because WP:MEDMOS (a community-wide guideline) gives basically the same advice as WP:PHARMMOS (a WP:WikiProject advice page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tylenol (brand) – In most cases I think redirecting brand to generic makes the most sense, possibly including a section on the brand in the article. However, I think that Tylenol should redirect to Tylenol (brand) with an obvious link in case the reader is looking for information about the active ingredient. Are there any other drugs that have separate articles for the generic and the brand? Natureium (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most people on this page seem to be medical professionals. Other people may be looking for business info, info on the widely known poisonings, or other non-pharmaceutical information. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep the status quo, directing to the generic name, because that is, well, the status quo as to how drug pages are done. But a separate discussion about changing/centralizing the guideline for drug names could make sense. For that matter, I'd rather it be acetaminophen instead of paracetamol, but that too is another discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish:Take a look at thePage history[, misread the first sentence of your comment]. This was originally the title of Tylenol (brandname), until it was moved from this to that, and this was redirected to paracetamol (all in May 2015). This was then retargeted back to Tylenol (brandname) in May 2016. It was just recently changed to paracetamol again this month.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the brand for the same reason you should "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" WP:Linking#Link_specificity and WP:SURPRISE. Not giving people the page they directed asked for is a real WP:DICK move. Siuenti (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tylenol -> paracetamol — Barely anyone will be looking for the brand. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 10:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page views (with "Tylenol" redirecting to the generic) are running about 6:1 in favor of the generic drug.[6] I assume think that a thousand people a day is more than you meant by "barely anyone". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing unusual in that. I think it far more likely that people are looking for information on the drug than the brand -- it just so happens that many people in one of the largest markets know the drug by the brand name rather than "paracetamol". older ≠ wiser 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those stats are very misleading. Most of the traffic to the two articles is not driven by the redirect (page views of the redirect in comparison are very low). A fair comparison would require measuring clicks from the disambiguation page only by creating an intermediate redirect to Tylenol (drug)Boghog (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your line of thinking. To end up at the page about the brand, you have to go out of your way to choose something called "Tylenol (brand)", from a list that puts plain "Tylenol" above it. I doubt that most people are deliberately choosing "(brand)" when they want to get to "plain". Boghog's right, of course: this is something that could be tested, if we wanted to know exactly how many people started with the plain name and wanted to get to the drug vs the brand. But, still: a thousand people per day for the brand's article. (Only about a hundred use the redirect for anything.) A thousand people per day is more than "barely anyone". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the brand. Normally this should be redirected to the generic name, but an exception should be made in this case since the brand is independently notable. Tylenol (brandname) already contains a hatnote to Paracetamol so if the reader is only interested in the active ingredient, then the reader can quickly switch to that article. Boghog (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seemed unsatisfactory that Tylenol redirected to Paracetamol with no clear link from there to Tylenol (brand), so I have added a hatnote to remedy this. PamD 11:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep status quo. After looking at the content of the two articles, I think it far more likely readers will be looking for info on the drug itself rather than the brand name.older ≠ wiser 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRetarget since (i) typing 'Tylenol' and getting 'Tylenol (brand)' should be coherent with the searcher's intent, and (ii) the 'Tylenol (brand)' article has a prominent link to paracetamol. With almost any other brand, the generic drug would be the right target, but as has been noted above, Tylenol is unusual. — soupvector (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current redirect is to paracetamol, not Tylenol (brand). Hence don't you mean retarget? Boghog (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me. — soupvector (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought. Why is Tylenol (brand) even disambiguated as was done in this edit? Tylenol is a registered trademark, hence by definition it is a brand name. The main article for the medication is paracetamol. Boghog (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog—Many (if not most) readers will not be aware that tylenol is a brand name — in the same way that heroin, aspirin, kerosene, linoleum all lost their trademark and became generic trademarks. Wikipedia should not artificially promote a trademark when it is highly unlikely that readers will be interested in the brand over the actual substance. It would be like targeting heroin -> heroin (brand) and only placing the article under diamorphine. It isn't unreasonable that people would want to know about the pre-1919 brand, it's just highly unlikely. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 09:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the purposes of the Tylenol article is to make clear that it is a brand. The examples you list have all been genericized (except for Asprin which has only been genericized in the US). The Tylenol trademark has not been genericized and is still valid. The scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:PHARMA. It also includes WP:ECONOMICS and WP:MARKETING. The Tylenol brand is independently notable because it is a widely cited case study in crisis management. Hence there is more interest in the brand name than you might think. Boghog (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the existence of the article, or that it isn't relevant — just that it shouldn't be the primary article linked from Tylenol. Carl Fredrik 💌📧 18:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From a WP:PHARMA standpoint, yes. From a WP:MARKETING standpoint, no. This article is about the branded drug, not the generic, and the branded drug is known by its tradename. Hence the redirect should point to the brand. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way here is someone on Jan 11th 2017 trying to use the existence of Tylenol (brand) as a separate article to create an article on Crocin the brand.[7]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doc James' approach is the most important: "This is one of the ways we deal with the mountain a spam that occurs." and Karl Fredrik has explained it very well. IMO the hatnote added by Boghog is the perfect solution to solve the controversy. Edited: Sorry, I made a mistake in interpreting this hatnote. --BallenaBlanca(Talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Best regards. --BallenaBlanca(Talk) 11:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both arguments are flawed. Applying Doc James' logic, Coca-Cola should be redirected to soft-drink because Coca-Cola might encourage other spammy soft-drink articles. Each article should be judged independently. Tylenol has numerous secondary sources to support its existence as an independent article. Crocin does not. WP:Other stuff exists has never been a valid argument for creating or keeping an article, hence the existence of the Tylenol article cannot be used to justify creating a stand alone Crocin article. Likewise Carl Fredrik's argument is flawed. The Tylenol trademark has not been genericized. Furthermore Tylenol brand is independently notable from the paracetamol drug. Boghog (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coke and pepsi are not exactly the same. Medications are generally single active substances. Tylenol as a brand is independently notable which is why we have an article on it. It is still a subpage of the article about the medication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different brands of paracetamol are not identical. They differ by there formulations (and marketing). Boghog (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The keep !votes have so far failed to bring forward supporting guidelines/policies and seem to think that all readers are patients looking for medicational info. As Boghog said earlier, WP's scope also includes other fields than pharmacy. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, editors are indeed citing the guideline at WP:MED, and pointing out that the brand page is clearly linked from the medical page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline? WP:MED is WikiProject Medicine's home page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I should have written: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I should have written "official guidelines/policies". WikiProject Pharmacology's style guide is but an informal essay, as can be seen from the disclaimer at the top, and thus has no authority to overrule Wikipedia's official rules. See also Whatamidoing's comment from 17:31, 14 January. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair, although I would consider guidelines (more so than policies) to be subject to editorial judgment, and thus, not really "official rules". As noted by other editors above, other projects such as MilHist also have content-specific conventions, and I think it's reasonable that some kinds of specific content might be treated in specific ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move Tylenol (brand) over redirect Tylenol is clearly the common name for the article, covering the brand. The Tylenol (brand) can then redirect to Tylenol. The hatnote for the active ingredient on top is good, as well as making redirects for "Tylenol active ingredient" and "Tylenol generic" to paracetamol. Other drugs like Ex-Lax do not have their own brand articles. Kleenex has its own article as its own notable brand, as with Coca-Cola vs. cola. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think WP:DRUGLIKE should be updated to specify how to deal with generic trademarks (or borderline) and drug brands that are notable enough for their own article. And also whether there should be redirects for dabs and such terms such as "Tylenol generic" "Tylenol drug", "Tylenol active ingredient" which should go to the drug. It's difficult to determine whether searchers want information on the drug or the brand. I also think if someone's typing in "Tylenol PM" or "Tylenol MAX" or the specific brand products then they are probably looking for the Tylenol brand page and want information on what the differences are or the brand's history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tylenol -> paracetamol, redirect to drug More than with other sorts of products, generic and branded drugs are the same except for the marketing. Any direct searches for branded drugs in Wikipedia should redirect to the generic because that is where Wikipedia keeps drug information. Most people searching for a brand name of drug are looking for information on the drug, not the brand. To serve those readers Wikipedia should prioritize the drug information. Among drug information sources Wikipedia is unique for even offering brand information. When an article on the brand exists, then it should be like "Tylenol (brand)" and available for people who want to learn about the brand as distinct from the drug and who go through the effort of navigating away from the drug information and into the legal and marketing information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to some others -
I agree with NickCT's intuition that COMMONNAME applies here. The rationale is that Tylenol is not a type of paracetamol, but instead a name for paracetamol. Boghog and AngusWOOF say that this situation is like Coca-Cola, but I disagree. Coca-Cola is a type of soft drink, and not an alternative name for soft drink which might refer to Maaza mango drink or Asahi canned coffee. Tylenol and paracetamol are alternative names for the same thing, and the COMMONNAME in research and across national borders is paracetamol. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA does not consider them the same thing. Drug product (Tylenol; active ingredient + formulation) ≠ drug substance (paracetamol; active ingredient).
"CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21". United States Food and Drug Administration. Drug substance means an active ingredient that is intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or to affect the structure or any function of the human body, but does not include intermediates use in the synthesis of such ingredient. Drug product means a finished dosage form, for example, tablet, capsule, or solution, that contains a drug substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association with one or more other ingredients.Boghog (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog I understand what you said, but now I think I am not sure why you said it. I now see that I misspoke when I said, "generic and branded drugs are the same...", because I think that is a distracting side issue. Now that I look again, I do not see this as a generic/branded drug issue or as a drug product/drug substance issue. Instead, I think that right now, this discussion is about differentiating a drug substance from a corporate brand.
Tylenol (brand) does not contain any drug product information. Do you think that it should? If we were differentiating drug substances from drug products, then that might be different, but I am not aware of Wikipedia routinely having both of those types of articles.
The FDA also seems to post health information while not making a sharp distinction between the effects of active ingredients and formulations including active ingredients. At Acetaminophen Information, they only talk about acetaminophen, but I presume all of this applies to Tylenol products containing those amounts of active ingredients. I am not sure how separate drug product/drug substance pages would look. Are you proposing that these should be distinct? Could you show an acetaminophen page and a Tylenol page at the FDA or anywhere else which could be models for how Wikipedia could differentiate these topics? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in my first post to this thread, Tylenol is an unusual case as the brand is unusually notable. In the vast majority of cases, a separate article on the brand is not justified. What differentiates this brand is not its pharmacological activity but rather its marketing and how the reputation of the brand was defended. The article currently does not contain any specific information on the formulation, nor should it, unless the formulation is some how notable. But that is besides the point. The Tylenol article falls more within the scope of WP:MARKETING than WP:MEDMOS, hence WP:COMMONNAME is the more relevant guideline. Boghog (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC) It is logical if we have an article about the brand, the redirect from the brand name should point to that article. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog I can agree that COMMONNAME applies. I do not think we have all the information necessary to make a perfect determination of the intent of majority of users who search for "Tylenol". I see some people here with opinions that they want the brand, but I do not see evidence supporting that. I also do not have evidence, but my opinion is that people wanting information about Tylenol care about the drug and not the brand. I do not feel that Tylenol has branded their products as "the type of acetaminophen called Tylenol", especially not in the marketing sense that Xerox famously wished that people would make photocopies with a Xerox brand photocopier instead of using "Xerox" as a term for any photocopier. Tylenol has sought to make the word "Tylenol" synonymous with acetaminophen. In general, all drug brands can be presumed to use a marketing strategy which seeks to present their branded drug as a synonym or replacement in the public mind for the name of a thing. This is not like any soda marketing strategy, or the marketing strategy of many other sectors of products.
I am not prepared to believe without further evidence or explanation that brand loyalty to Tylenol is stronger than the consumer loyalty to acetaminophen, and on that basis, I say the common name is whatever generic term is used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with loyalty, but rather brand notability. Within the scope of WP:BRANDS, Tylenol is independently notable because it is frequently used as a case study in crisis management. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something to ponder on: Co-codamol lists four variants of Tylenol, in which codeine is an active substance too. Ergo, Tylenol can be more than just paracetamol, in addition to being a formulation including other ingredients, like Boghog said several times before. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Paracetamol article has a section on available forms, which discusses the fact that paracetamol is often combined with other drugs, including codeine: see Paracetamol#Available_forms. There is nothing special about Tylenol in this regard either. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is without going to the brand name. WP:MARKETING is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Directing readers to the generic name "Paracetamol" is most appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would no more be marketing than to redirect any brand name would be. If you think the article Tylenol (brand) is communicating to the reader "You should buy Tylenol!", then that's very much a problem to be addressed. But the way to address it is to edit the article, not to attempt to hide it. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like WP:SPAM. Redirecting to the brand name is not acceptable. The best way forward is to redirect to the generic name. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an educator who strongly prefers INNs over trade names (because I think they're safer - the provide some indication of drug class, etc), I share your disdain for trade names. That said, your comment about this being a not-for-profit encyclopedia is a complete non sequitur. WP is also not censored - so we should not avoid a name simply because it has a corporate basis - our linking should be based on policy and our best inference of reader intent. — soupvector (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My policy is to avoid linking to brand names whenever possible. It is not necessary to direct readers to a brand name when we have other options available. If policy says we should direct readers to a brand name for some reason then we should change the policy to avoid discussions like this in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is policy, WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, and WP:PHARMOS is an essay. Policy is silent on drug names. Guidelines recommend to redirect to brand names to the INN. Guidelines are also accompanied by an implicit WP:IAR. The vast majority of cases, the guideline is appropriate. This is a rare exception. No change in guidelines are necessary except perhaps to explicitly state that exceptions can occur. Boghog (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men – Harry Day, Royal Air Force. Boghog (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong moveTylenol (brand) over redirect. Shame on us if we have an article on X, a reader asks us for X, and we send them to Y! The active ingredient is well linked from there, in both a hatnote and the lede, so readers will quite easily find their way to the general article if that's what they want. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this discussion has been relisted, does anyone have an idea how to get to a consensus, one way or the other? I sure don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I suppose that I'll chime in since I don't think I will be closing this, and didn't see a way to close the discussion when I relisted it... Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Tylenol to a disambiguation page due to the strong lack of consensus prior to the relist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steel1943. I guess that's one way to split the baby, but I tend to think that it makes things worse than having mutual see-also hatnotes at the top of each page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I tend to agree with that. But, as shown above, I'm not even sure that a "no consensus" close would default to "keep". That, and I'm more than certain based on the above discussion, if I had closed the discussion to "disambiguate" without commenting in the discussion, it would have been perceived as a WP:SUPERVOTE and the close would probably have been sent to WP:DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there would be no way to close the discussion so far as "disambiguate" or any other positive action, and I'm not sure what "no consensus" would default to. Since it's relisted, let's sit back and see if other editors come up with a good solution (and if not, perhaps it would be best to close it as "no consensus" defaulting to taking no action at this time). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has changed several times over the years, so the status quo ante is not clear. The article started out as a redirect to acetaminophen in 2002, then converted to a brand article in 2004. In 2015, Tylenol article was disambiguated and new redirect from Tylenol to paracetamol was created. The redirect to paracetamol was changed back to the brand in 2016 and then back to paracetamol in 2017. Hence its history as a brand (4194 days) has been about four times as long as a drug (1043 days). Boghog (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move over redirect per AngusWOOF. Tylenol, unlike other brands, is a very prominent American drug brand as well. Hatnote and links to the generic drug should be good enough if that's what people want. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- the branded drug name should redirect to the generic. There is nothing special about Tylenol as medicine. Acetaminophen is acetaminophen. The brand has a notable history Tylenol (brand) is indeed for the history of the brand itself. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MoveTylenol (brand)over redirect per BDD. AngusWOOF mentions Kleenex, which by the rationales put forth by those advocating for this to target paracetamol, should target facial tissue ("... the Kleenex name has become ... genericized: the popularity of the product has led to the use of its name to refer to any [brand of] facial tissue ... Many dictionaries ... now include definitions in their publications defining it as such.") The same would hold true for other brand names. In the event of no consensus, I believe this action is also the status quo ante per Boghog and my first and only non-nomination comment above. I would also be semi-content with a disambiguation page as my second choice if it gains enough support, which would be similar to what has been done with Band Aid and Coke ("Band-Aid is arguably a genericized trademark" and Names for soft drinks in the United States#Coke). However, the full proper names of those two things are again the titles of articles about brands (i.e. Band-Aid and Coca-Cola respectively), and those alternative names have many more things to disambiguate between as well (which Tylenol does not). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do things slightly differently for medications than many other commercial products. The reason we do this is to prevent duplicating the "medical uses", "side effects", "mechanism of action", etc across the 1000s of brandnames that exist for paracetamol. You use Wikipedia long enough and you know that if you type in a brand name it will take you to the generic name. The current set up is the least surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Is there any other case where a standalone article about a singular medicine brand name exists (in the form of "X (brand)"), where the undisambiguated title redirects to the drug, that demonstrates this specific pattern? From what I can find, Tylenol seems to be unique in that sense. Ibuprofen brand names exists, but that is a list of brands. Bayer exists (which I anecdotally associate with aspirin), but they make many other drugs.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The reason that most drug brand names are redirected to the generic is that there is nothing particularly notable that distinguishes one brand from the next, not because it would duplicate "medical uses", "side effects", "mechanism of action". Tylenol (brand) contains none of this information, nor should it. What distinguishes Tylenol from Calpol, Panadol, etc. is Tylenol's unique history. Tylenol is sufficiently independently notable to exist as a stand alone article whereas Calpol, Panaol, etc. are not. Hence Tylenol should not be merged into Paracetamol_brand_names. Finally Tylenol is more within the scope of WP:BRANDS than WP:PHARMA, hence WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:MEDMOS is the relevant naming guideline. Boghog (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a straw man. I don't think anyone is saying that an article on Tylenol should substantially duplicate the paracetamol article, any more than Orange soft drink means there's nothing independent to say about Sunkist. There's only one thing called "Tylenol"; it's not a case where everyone was calling something "tylenol" and one company just swooped up the name (is it?). --BDD (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do this to help people to find the content they are most likely looking for. And to prevent spam. Tylenol (brand) is a subpage of the acetaminophen article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This case is unique, which I demonstrate above, so it can't be said that "we do this". Moreover, we don't know what people are looking for, though we could test it as described by Boghog and WhatamIdoing in their replies to Bkonrad (i.e. older ≠ wiser) above. Tylenol (brand) isn't a subpage.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent spam is a specious argument. We do not censor nor hide notable articles because their existence might encourage less notable articles. Echoing Godsy, the scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:PHARMA, it also includes WP:BRANDS, and within the scope of the later project, Tylenol is not on a subpage, it is the main article. Boghog (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Godsy and Boghog, I'd like to say that the status quo reminds me of WP:EASTEREGG. And who designated Tylenol (brand) a subpage? Was there any consensus for that? Besides, WP:Subpages gives a completely different definition of the word, so the concept Doc James has in mind does not even apply/exist. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW. Closing "early" per WP:RELIST. I relisted this discussion due to the "retarget" and "disambiguate" options presented, but it definitely looks like it's WP:SNOW-ing now. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or retarget. Personally I think WP:WINNING is most likely what people will mean. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for fuck's sake, why are you people such busybodies??? Read the target page -- actually read it -- and you'll see why one of the shortcuts to it is WP:WINING; it's not a typo. Ppperry, I've enjoyed working with you on the protections table, but you have a very bad habit of jumping into things you don't understand without asking first what's going on, and thereby causing a lot of extra work for people e.g. your nomination of {{ran}} for deletion. WP:WINNING is winning, and WP:WINING is wining. They are two different things, and each redirect points to the page it's supposed to. Why would you want WP:WINING to point to WP:Wikipedia is not about winning??? EEng 02:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (replacing my nom statement), as forgetting the second "N" seems like a likely typo for WP:WINNING, an essay that is more than twice as big (as Thryduulf said above), and the usage of "wining" in the way it is used in the essay is somewhat obscure. No objection to retargeting to WP:WINNING instead. Pppery 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is turned into a dab, it should also include WP:WINE. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... which strengthens my argument. Even if you assume that the reader who types WP:WINING didn't make a typo, they are more likely to be looking for the WikiProject than a short essay. Pppery 03:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He said if it's turned in to a dab. David Eppstein, what would you like to see happen if it's not turned into a dab? EEng 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That it continues to point to the one about whiners. Especially the ones whining about misspelled redirects. Winners can spell correctly, so they don't need the redirect as much. More to the point, the whining redirect is valid as an intentional misspelling or pun (if you're into that sort of thing) while deliberately using the wining link to point to winning would be...whatever that word is that's the opposite of winning. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've got an even sharper pen than I do. BTW I knew Moon Duchin in passing at Harvard. I recall a talk she gave on the number of colors needed to identify keys on a ring. It was great. EEng 05:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
colored keysI colored this set with nail polish, not with wine nor a sharp pen. Sounds likely to be for the same problem as Duchin. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was exactly this problem, and I remember being tickled that you need more colors for the early cases with fewer keys. In the subsequent discussion I raised that the red and white emergency lights along the floors of aircraft don't encode which way to the nearest exit, but they could -- what pattern with two colors, what pattern with three, etc. Gleason was there (the group was entirely undergrads + him + me -- he loved undergraduates) and there was a fun discussion. EEng 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment This is insane. Here's what's going on:
A year ago I created an essage WP:Wikipedia is not about whining, with shortcuts WP:WHINING, WP:WHINER: WP:WHINE. Because that essay also covers the subject of "wining", I recently added the shortcut WP:WINING.
The argument that WP:WINING is a useful typo-alternative for WP:WINNING is absurd. If it were, someone, would have created it for that sometime in the last 10 years.
This all started, apparently, because PPPerry mistakenly thought that WINING is a mispelling of WHINING [9], and therefore (the logic seems to go) why shouldn't it equally be a misspelling for WINNING? But it's not a misspelling of anything, it's exactly what it's supposed to be, so none of this makes sense. Everything's fine as it is. EEng 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I read the essay and understood the reference. The dab argument is silly, we don't disambiguate typos nor do we typically disambiguate on Wikipedia space except when absolutely necessary. If anything, add a hatnote. --Tavix(talk) 15:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the target essay also clearly covers wining. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only a WP: shortcut, not in mainspace, so it's valid in the same way that WP:CESSPIT is. No need for a dab. A hatnote would be OK. May I have a glass of whine now? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Goes precisely where it's supposed to. – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per page/essay content. Not only does it fit the page content, its content pertains to page fits. Randy Kryn 22:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted??? Is a robot running this board? For crying out loud, please someone stick a fork in this! EEng 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect from WP:WINING to the essay on whining and homophones thereof, but also keep the hatnote thereon -- {{redirect|WP:WINING|the essay on...}} (though ideally replace 'teamwork' with the correct 'winning' in the Template:redirect verbiage.) And if I did want to whine about something, it would be that WP:WINING ought to redirect to the WP:WHINING#cooldown anchor (which is about wining), not to the top of said essay (which is about whining), but if this is done, the top-of-essay hatnote will need to be converted into a section-hatnote so that it is visible for people that really DID mean to type WP:WINNING but forgot a crucial cosonant. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the discussion has been relisted. In my personal opinion, there is an emerging consensus to keep. Does anyone disagree with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Wikipedia:Current wildfire
(Talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 
