Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2020.

Loop 404[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error, not found at target. An internet search suggests that there's myriad non-notable Loop 404s around the US, but none proposed for Phoenix. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, suggests that something nonexistent exists. Potentially confusing, too; I figured this was something related to an HTTP 404 error. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reason this was created is because Phoenix has loops numbered 101, 202, and 303. 404 may exist in the future, but nothing is planned yet. HotdogPi 19:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Collapse forcing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. A section redirect to Levy collapsing remains possible. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be part of it and an ideal redirect:
  • Thomas Jech (21 March 2006). Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, revised and expanded. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 755. ISBN 978-3-540-44085-7. Retrieved 23 June 2020.
  • Weak delete As far as I'm aware there is no single forcing partial order called "collapse forcing" (which would be why it's "not mentioned at the target"). It's more of a broad concept of a class of forcing notions. On the other hand, redirects are cheap and the entry in the Jech index suggests this one could possibly be useful to somebody. On the third hand, it seems almost equally plausible that someone might link a concept from an article on structural engineering or something, and that would be just confusing. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The village with the long name[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of long place names. Borderline no consensus, but a default no-consensus close (i.e., no change) would, perhaps paradoxically, be against consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are places with much longer names, so there's no reason to point to this one particularly. Alternatively, a retarget to List of long place names might work as well. I'm fairly ambivalent between retargeting or deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Whilst I did think of the Welsh place, it's not the longest. And depending on where in the world people are searching, they'll be looking for different long place names. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list per nom, as that will enable people to find the article about whichever village they were thinking of but couldn't remember (or spell) the name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. At best it is highly ambiguous (lots of places with long names). We already have a List of long place names. An article title, including redirects, in an encyclopaedia ought to be something distinctive. This principle is different from a general-purpose search-engine matching; the redirect is formulated as a search engine term, not as an encyclopaedia title. Delete. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects exist for the purpose of helping people find the article they are looking for without requiring them to know our article titling policies in advance ({{R from search term}} exists for a reason) and these redirects help external search engines determine what results to give people using them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and Thryduulf. It's a plausible search term, and readers can take it from there. (Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch is the 2nd-longest name in that list.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is really inappropriate to delete the redirect since most people who wanted to find the village with the long name would likely not know the name itself. I do think that most people who want to find it do intend to find Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch since it is the most famous one, even though I have heard it many times, I would not know how to spell it. Redirect it to the list of long place names however is acceptable given the small possibility that those who search for the term may want to find other places. Hzh (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The conflicting !votes both going WP:PERNOM shows just why that is a terrible argument to make. Retarget seems like the most helpful option to our readers (which is the purpose of a redirect like this one, after all). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the longest village name on the list, may as well go straight there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • If the redirect was "The village with the longest name" I'd agree going directly to the article about the longest named village would be good. However it isn't, it's just "the long name", we don't know which of the several villages on the list they were thinking of. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Espéranto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED by a WP:VANISHED user. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, this is French for Esperanto and the Esperanto article does suggest that there is significant association between French/France and this language. It's also plausible for someone unfamiliar with Esperanto orthography to see this in a French context and assume that the accented spelling is the native one. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bank station (Ottawa)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Transitway (Ottawa)#Central Transitway. The discussion did not have a strong consensus, but the proposal to redirect to Transitway (Ottawa)#Central Transitway won some late support, and at a minimum this seems like a preferable solution over defaulting to keep. No prejudice against further discussion and renomination, but relisting it outright seems unlikely to generate more discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first redirect was first an article about a bus stop, then blanked and redirected to Transitway (Ottawa), then retargeted to Parliament station. Neither of the latter 2 targets mention "Bank station" and the current target is not known as "Bank station". The other 3 redirects are similar. I suggest delete all. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bank station was a stop on Ottawa's rapid bus system, known as the Transitway. It no longer exists, because it was replaced by light rail. Parliament Station is the closest station to Bank, but it's not the same thing. I suggest reverting the redirects so that the Bank station article discusses the historicity of the now defunct station.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bank "station" was no more than an on-street bus stop – I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for having its own article. I'd be fine with deleting the redirects. BLAIXX 21:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale above. BLAIXX 03:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If not a separate article, then at least the Transitway (Ottawa)#History section should be expanded to refer to these stops by name. Set theorist (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the names of these former stops to the description at Transitway (Ottawa)#Central Transitway (which is the redirect target of Central Transitway), so these titles can redirect there. Set theorist (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist so that editors can assess Set theorist's arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we ideally want a bit more work at Transitway (Ottawa). The only mention of the Bank station is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it reference to a Bank Street stop (I assume that's the same thing?). I haven't looked into the other stations cited by Set theorist. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, because the target page does not mention the journal "Electronic transactions...". Moreover, this journal is apparently defunct and it is unlikely to be mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a mention has been added. The subject being defunct is not a deletion rationale even for an article let alone a redirect (WP:DEFUNCT), redirects in particular are not required to meet notability criterion, and the lack of notability does not forbid a brief mention of the journal in the article per WP:NLISTITEM. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hindi Literature Info[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect dates back to March 2004. I've marked it unprintworthy. Should it be deleted or retargeted to Hindi literature? BDD (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this a redirect from a move? If yes, then an article (whose content was even worse than its title) existed at this title for a few weeks 16 years ago, so there's no reason to keep because of that. Delete as an unlikely search phrase. – Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Finnic paganism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retargeting to Finnish paganism. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Сitadel of Baturyn Fortress[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The redirect's initial character is the Cyrillic "С", not am English C; unlikely that someone would type this mix of Cyrillic and English letters (unlike ЯЕD SQЦАЯЕ, this is not faux Cyrillic). UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, while the Ukrainian language does use a form of the Cyrillic alphabet, and there is a connection between Ukrainian and the target, I'm not sure someone would really search for the target page using a Cyrillic С, like with my earlier nomination of "Michael Asen IV оf Bulgaria" in April. It kinda seems like search bar clutter. Regards, SONIC678 06:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mixed script redirects are nearly always more harmful than useful and I see no evidence that this is an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom. § DDima 19:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about a month old so very borderline for WP:R3 and I can't think of any other speedy deletion criterion it would fall under. An uninvolved admin might choose to delete it per WP:SNOW but that is not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Liam Dutton[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect that was just pointing to a one-liner bit of trivia where he's mentioned (which I've since removed, so it doesn't even have that anymore). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation if the subject is notable, and to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Orthodox Church[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Discussion is roughly split on whether to keep it as-is or retarget it, and those who want it retargeted are also split between Orthodox#Religion and Orthodoxy#Christianity. I think we can agree that "Orthodox Church" is ambiguous, but this is more of a question of whether there is a primary topic, and I think those editors made their case well. -- Tavix (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodox is also known as Orthodox Church and is not the same as Eastern Orthodox and has a separate article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Orthodox#Religion (a dab page section) where all the various Orthodox churches are (or should be) listed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the hatnote disambiguation already at Eastern Orthodox Church is sufficient to direct people where they need to go. Anecdotally, the Eastern Orthodox church is the primary topic here, and Google Scholar would appear to confirm that, both when you survey search results for "Orthodox Church" (many search results about the Eastern Orthodox use "Orthodox Church" in titles without further clarification, whereas articles of Oriental Orthodox denominations appear to always immediately contextualize with the specific location or denomination, and it takes a page or two before OOC results show up for the first time) as well as when you compare raw counts of search results for each denomination (10,600 results for EOC, 239 for OOC). signed, Rosguill talk 03:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - already has disambiguation with further information declared. By this action, shouldn't the Catholic Church article be solely retargeted itself? Oh, might I also add it is the most common simple name for Eastern Orthodoxy. Oriental Orthodoxy is not classified solely as the Oriental Orthodox Church, but as Oriental Orthodox Churches. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Orthodox#Religion per Thryduulf. This action will destroy any room for debate. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is ambiguous but rather than target a disambiguation page (a sensible option) it may be better to accept there is a primary topic and target that, where there are 2 useful hatnotes to both the nominator's alternative and to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually prefer WP:1HAT over two on Wikipedia articles. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but exceptions may be warranted. I think one is here. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shhhnotsoloud: I disagree that there is a clear primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, but to Orthodoxy#Christianity. Keeping with general English usage, it's fair to assume "church" means Christianity. While it can be difficult to disentangle the separate expressions of Orthodox Christianity, this is going to remain a very common search term. I strongly favor keeping this pointing to article content by default. Thus, my second choice would be keep, since Eastern Orthodox Church covers the great majority of Orthodox Christianity, and has comprehensive hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is, what are you looking for, when clicking on the link 'Orthodox Church'. I do not have the data, but I believe that a large part of wiki articles with this link refers to Eastern Orthodox Church. I myself got here from a page about a certain Swiss town. The demographics said that 10 people belonged to Orthodox Church. I do not have the official data, because it refers to 2009 survey, which I cannot check. Nevertheless, in general, it is more likely to belong to an Eastern Orthodox Church in Switzerland than to Oriental Orthodox. Thus I presume the page should have redirected me to the Eastern orthodox. Furthermore, the page for Eastern Orthodox Church has many sufficient hatnotes. If we chose to retarget though, I agree with the above comment of BDD, who suggested retargeting to Orthodoxy#Christianity, rather than Orthodox#Religion, which would be even more confusing. Cunikm (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, there obviously is a confusion in what an eastern and what an oriental orthodox church is. The proof are the maps on the respective pages. Both maps show, that above 50% of Ethiopian population belong to either Eastern or Oriental church. However, only about half of the entire Ethiopian population is Christian. The similar thoughts can be made about Egypt, for example. Cunikm (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more note here: There are a lot of incoming links (500+ in mainspace alone). These would need to be updated if this is retargeted to a disambiguation page. No such action would be needed if we retarget to Orthodox#Christianity. Any non-Christian uses probably shouldn't be linking via "Orthodox Church" anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Episode 420[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Borderline no consensus, though the result is the same. Discussion is sufficiently skeptical about the possibility of disambiguation. I would encourage editors interested in such a route to draft something at Episode 420 (disambiguation), or in draft space. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Talk:420 (Family Guy)#Requested move 31 May 2020, "Episode 420" is far too ambiguous as dozens of TV shows have run 420 episodes or more. There is no reason for this to redirect to one episode of Family Guy, esp. now that the article on the episode has been moved. I would advocate that this redirect be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Far too many shows or other forms of media likely have at least 420 episodes or more. I think this redirects only exists due to the '420' joke. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Captain Galaxy: No, the redirect exists because the episode is named "Episode 420", so it is reasonable for people to search "Episode 420" to find the article by that name. How do you propose people accomplish that should this redirect be deleted? -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I retract my vote and changed it to keep per Tavix. I didn't notice this page does in fact get a lot of traffic monthly. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: Episode 420 (Family Guy) would still exist. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Episode 420 (Family Guy)" is not a plausible search term, but "Episode 420" is. "Episode 420 (Family Guy)" implies a disambiguated title, so there should be something at the base title. It is harmful to remove a useful navigational tool for those seeking to find content by that name. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really?! "Episode 420 Family Guy" is not a plausible search term?!... Regardless, we've had a WP:RM, and it was determined that, 1) the Family Guy episode did not belong at the "base title", and 2) that, in fact, the article title should be at "420 (Family Guy)" and not "Episode 420 (Family Guy)". I am not adverse to putting a WP:DABPAGE at Episode 420. But, failing that, the redirect should be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Episode 420 Family Guy" is a bit different from "Episode 420 (Family Guy)", but I digress. Both of which could be used as search terms, but I don't think either would be as plausible as an actual name of the episode. -- Tavix (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous per nomination and my echoed comments at the RM discussion. -2pou (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that other shows have more than 420 episodes is irrelevant. People would only search this for episodes that are actually referred to as "Episode 420". If there are others besides Family Guy, this can be disambiguated, but none have been suggested. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's not "irrelevant" – "Episode 420" literally refers to any 420th episode of any series that has run that many episodes. Think about it – if Family Guy had an episode entitled "Episode 2", does anyone really think that "Episode 2" would redirect to the Family Guy episode?! Of course not, because there are multiple TV series that don't give formal "titles" to their episodes, and so it'll just be listed as "Episode 2" in that show's episodes table. The same principle applies if it's "Episode 2" or "Episode 420". It is absolutely ambiguous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Episode 420" is a formal name of this episode, unlike other 420th episodes. In this case, it is absolutely a plausible search term for this episode and this episode only because no other (notable) episodes by that name exist. There is no expectation of finding a list of 420th episodes, so we need not worry about other random 420th episodes. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter that it's a "plausible search term" – what matters is that it's ambiguous as is: it could refer to more than just a single episode of Family Guy. Either a WP:DABPAGE needs to be put there, or the redirect needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It absolutely matters whether or not someone would plausibly use "Episode 420" to find an episode of Family Guy that has been named "Episode 420". I disagree with the assertion of ambiguity because no one has come forward with any evidence that there are other episodes that are formally named "Episode 420". If there are others named that, then it would be plausible for someone to search for them and should be used in a hypothetical disambiguation page. Other random 420th episodes are not called "Episode 420"—the actual name of the episode would be used—thus it would not be plausible for someone to search in this fashion to find such an episode. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The Family Guy episode is the only one for which this is the exact title, and thus the only one for which this is a plausible search term. While there are more things than I thought that have at least this many episodes, none of them are any more significant as search terms than Episode 419 or Episode 301 or any other number you happen to choose. Thryduulf (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or DABify - You could make the argument of having a second DAB entry with text similar to "The 420th episode of a television series." But I'm not sure which side of WP:TWODABS this would fall on. Either way, a redlink is the wrong outcome because there's at least one topic with this title. --NYKevin 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Tavix makes a good point, but it is entirely possible that other episodes with this name exist and we don't know about it yet. By disambiguating, anyone searching for Episode 420 of a different series might see the one for Family Guy but also may see a list of 420th episodes of other series, which may in fact be what they were looking for. Given how contentious this one is, that alone suggests there is enough ambiguity to warrant a DAB. --Micky (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted earlier to "Keep or DABify," but I oppose listing a potentially huge number of different TV series on one enormous DAB page, especially since well-intentioned editors might then be tempted to make another one for each possible number. My proposed DAB page would have exactly two entries. --NYKevin 08:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose disambiguation unless and until we have content about other episodes that are actually called this specifically and aren't just the 420th episode of something. If we get something like "The 420 Episode" then a hatnote at the current target will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comparative morphology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Comparative morphology

Archeway[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by a banned user called Composemi. Despite this However, it is a plausible misspelling of Archway. Maybe retargeting to there? Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh - I'm mostly posting this to clear a few things up. Firstly, "banned" in this context means "topic banned from creating redirects" rather than "sitebanned." Secondly, it originally targeted Megxit, but was then retargeted to its current target by another editor. Thirdly, this probably has something to do with the charity work section, which mentions a foundation called "Archewell" and also suggests a connection to her son, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. So this probably originated as a misspelling of one or the other of those. But Archway is probably the more plausible interpretation. However, I'm not entirely sure whether this counts as a plausible typo of "Archway" either. --NYKevin 08:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete All the google hits relate to this being the first proposed name for their Archewell foundation, however "Archeway" is not mentioned anywhere and "Archewell" gets essentially the same single sentence at Megxit, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex so there is nowhere to target it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom; also per revenge. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @3125A: What do you mean by "also per revenge"? Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: I'm stressed about every report I get, people say "keep!". I know it's my fault, but I am still very mad. Block me if you want to.{{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Composemi is infamous in RfD but some of the redirects weren't too off base; could also consider a DAB for both as NYKevin makes some good points, though it feels like a stretch. --Micky (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively retarget to Archway. Several people above me make good points about this foundation and how it isn't mentioned on certain pages, however I can see someone searching using "Archeway," which sounds really similar. However, I wonder if there might be some other suitable target or action like NYKevin points out, and I might change my !vote because of this. Regards, SONIC678 04:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if there is accent differences here - I would pronounce "Archeway" as /ɑːɹʃ̩weɪ/ (ar-shway) or /aːɹtʃ.ə.weɪ/ (arch-e-way) which is distinctly different to "Archway" /ɑːɹtʃ.weɪ/ (arch-way), which makes Archway seem an unlikely target to me. However if the two words are homophones for others that would be rather different. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I pronounce both Archeway and Archway as /aːrtʃ.wɛ/ AHRTCH-way or /aːrk.wɛ/ AHRK-way. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No-one so far has mentioned that there's a reason the term redirects to the current target: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry tried to call their charity ‘Archeway’ but ditched name and set up ‘Archewell’. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It seems novel as a misspelling, and we run into an WP:XY problem otherwise—the new foundation is mentioned at the target article, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Megxit. If there's ever an article on the foundation that mentions this considered name, retargeting there would make sense. As such, I'm inclined to see it as detritus. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_30&oldid=975956775"