Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2021.

LeBron Witness Shirt[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. Personally, I think we'd want a redirect for the phrase itself before having one for specific products using it. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unlikely search term and is not currently discussed in the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 6 May 2021 (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.

Big 11[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, refine to Big Ten Conference#1990 expansion: Penn State. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created when the Big Ten Conference had eleven (11) member institutions. It now has fourteen (14) members, so having "Big 11" redirect to Big Ten Conference would just result in unwarranted confusion. The owner of all (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and there is nothing else more relevant that "Big 11" could redirect towards. I have not seen any confusion over the redirect, especially considering the conference had 11 members a little over a decade ago or so. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect makes no sense. Jay (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 6 May 2021 (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.

Arcade tournament[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 Esports. -- Tavix (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at Arcade game or the recently split Arcade video game. The page history shows that this was just a spam page fifteen years ago. IceWelder [✉] 09:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 6 May 2021 (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.

Corporate media[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 Big Media. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
I think we should have another discussion about this. The first RfD closed with preference to send the recently-redirected article to AfD. The AfD closed as delete, but a few days later, the redirect was re-created. So here we are again. Last time the redirect was targeted to concentration of media ownership, this time it is targeted to media conglomerate. I think this target is better than the last one, but still not "right" IMO. My opinion is that Wikipedia should have something on the topic, whether a redirect, dab page, or stub. I might be leaning towards a dab page.
As an aside, I'm not comfortable with how this situation was procedurally handled. I think that it would have been better to at first discuss the merits of the redirect at RfD and if a consensus to delete occurred, it would be sent to AfD. That said, the old article due to its importance probably should've been discussed at AfD. I don't know really, but it seems wrong to end up back at RfD again. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created this redirect today. As the deleted article was apparently very old I think it is important to put something at that title, and the current target seemed to be the best of two options discussed at the AfD. A disambiguation page would also be an excellent idea. I've got no strong views on the final outcome, just that it shouldn't be left empty. User:GKFXtalk 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig with Concentration of media ownership and Media conglomerate. Jay (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Big Media per BDD. This is the DAB that would have been created if there wasn't one. Jay (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation. This is not an ambiguous term; "corporate media" may not refer to both a media conglomerate and concentration of media ownership (and definitely not public relations). The "concentration" article is really a how did this happen supplement to "media conglomerate", so a disambiguation of those two articles really wouldn't work for any potentially ambiguous term. That being said, I think retarget to mass media makes the most sense. It's much broader, but the article does cover corporations and similar terms (eg: Media company) redirect there. Failing that, I do think the current target is the "closest" if I can get past my aversion from redirecting a broad term to a narrower one. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The mention of corporate/corporation in mass media is only to say that corporates use mass media for broadcasting. It is not related to corporate media, unless I missed some other mention in the article. Media company also should not redirect to mass media, and should be listed in this Rfd or a separate one. Jay (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the exception to retargeting to Mass media specifically (which I find unsatisfying per Jay), all of these options came up at AfD, which closed as delete. AfD is not binding forever, of course, but it should be for a few months at least. This redirect has clearly been found problematic. I recommend letting it remain fallow for a bit, at least until a better option emerges. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, retarget to Big Media. That's something that has actually changed since the AfD, as it used to redirect to Concentration of media ownership. "Big Media" and "corporate media" are roughly synonymous epithets, and I'm comfortable responding to a reader query on them essentially with "Do you want the companies themselves or the phenomenon?" I largely stand by my comments above, but maybe I should reserve deletion as a second choice. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Big Media which disambiguates between the most plausible targets as I see them - Concentration of media ownership and Mainstream media. I explicitly oppose retargetting to Mass media as that is too broad to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (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.

Computer game[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 Video game. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 12:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. Permalink to archived discussion]

Redirect computer game to video game, as RSes don't use "computer game" to refer exclusively to PC games, and adjust the leads appropriately. We could get into the nitty-gritty of regional differences but we'd need a RS saying that one is BrE, one is AmE, etc.

If anyone needs them, here are some random examples of British RSes using "computer game" and "video game" as interchangeable terms: BBC, BBC, Guardian, Guardian, Times, Independent. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose although I agree the terms are confirmed to be interchangeable, I don't believe it is more common than referring to PC games at the moment. I still think having a Computer game be the disambiguation page solves this problem. We don't want the same discussion in the future for the opposite reason.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I acknowledge the change as being more correct in designation than the current manner it's handled, which is on basis of colloquial use as opposed to definition. If the change is not made in the manner suggested by Popcornfud, then, at the very least, I feel a compromise should be made wherein the term redirects to the disambiguation and that the disambiguation should be adjusted to accommodate accordingly. Similar to what TheJoebro64 suggested with a little bit of tweaking. EDIT: I see Dissident93's suggestion -presented below- as the most appropriate course of action currently on the table. Fact Scanner (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and simply add a hatnote regarding PC game at the top of the page. No real need to create a disambiguation page if that suffices. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment @Dissident93: We wouldn't be creating a new Disambiguation. There already is one that exists because there's already other possible terms that computer game can mean. Computer game (disambiguation) which is why JoeBro64 and I suggested it just be the disambiguation page (and include an entry for video games).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Believe it or not, some people really call video games of any kind "computer games", hence why the retarget and hatnote would be a sensible option. Dominicmgm (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to video game. Terms are used interchangeably and as said above, a hatnote would resolve any disambiguation issues with "PC game". czar 19:03, 8 May 2021 (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.

Wikidata redirects[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. ✗plicit 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 4#Wikidata-style redirects * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I cannot think of a reason to maintain them. I accidentally created the last two when working a list of redlinks from a list of desired articles. If there is a way to speed up the process for these two - like blanking the page and requesting an author requested deletion, I would be happy to do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible oppose At least for the ones I am familiar with. Many of these are alternative names of women, and at different times different names were used. For example, Janine Pease has been known as Janine Windy Boy, Janine Pretty on Top and various combinations thereof . Natawista Iksina is also spelled something like Na’toy ist’ ina, and she had several English language names (Medicine Snake Woman, Holy Snake, Mrs. Alexander Culbertson, etc…) and so on. Without appropriate redirects we could wind up with two separate articles. So I guess I’m only here to express a concern that we not lose the ability to link wiki data to the correct article. I presume there’s some discrepancy between the main article titles on WP and linking the right people to wiki data somehow? Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw I am just trying to understand. I am not sure why these redirects with Wikidata IDs are needed. If there are alternate spellings, couldn't redirects be created like Janine Windy Boy to redirect to Janine Pease, per Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap (for redirects that make sense and are useful). Optionally, if the names are uniformly known as something other than the article title, perhaps the article title could be moved to the frequently known name, per WP:COMMONNAME?–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Why do these need to be brought to RfD? What is the purpose in doing that? Just noting also that there's attribution at Special:Permalink/998164861 for the content of a later article, which needs to be preserved in some manner. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can't work out what these redirects are even for.. but since there are plenty of examples of similar ones that have been removed, these ought to be too. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I accidentally created one of those - I thought I'd flagged it for deletion at the time but I must have forgotten... As far as I'm concerned they should be deleted (after checking a proper title for the article for that woman exists) -interestingly, I have no note of having done an Elizabeth Grant so I must have been completely mad that day. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the clear consensus not only in the RFD mentioned by nom but also in the ones it directly or indirectly links to. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 76#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers (November 2019) agreed that such redirects should go, but reached no consensus as to whether or not they should be specifically identified in a WP:CSD criterion. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sole actual problem here is that the tasklists in Wikipedia projectspace that are generated by checking Wikidata for people who have entries there that are not connected to Wikipedia articles yet (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/ANB) sometimes shovel the wikidata ID number into the redlink title for no apparent reason even though it isn't actually needed (and thus sometimes obscures the fact that there is already an article that just hasn't been linked to the wikidata entry yet). There's no actual problem directly connecting the wikidata ID to the correct article at all, and the process does not actually require creating an internal redirect from a title with the Wikidata number in it. If the name part of the redirect is useful, then by all means create a redirect from the name part — but the Wikidata Q# is never necessary in a Wikipedia redirect at all, because that has nothing to do with how a Wikidata entry gets connected to a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2021 (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.

Plantation Workers' Congress[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. ✗plicit 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target and relation remains unclear following an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 5 May 2021 (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.

Boston Misunderstanding[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) 14:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be an attested alternative name for the Boston Massacre. The only relevant hits I found while searching were satirical (eg: [2]). -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems like a joke redirect.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If there are satirical references, like the one linked, then this may be of use to readers who are looking up the reference to figure out what it's talking about. Tamwin (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s just one I don’t think it’s enough to keep this.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the only reference though: [3] plus another one I can't add because it's on the spam blacklist. Now, admittedly, that's not a ton, which is why it's a weak keep. Tamwin (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the satirical work cannot establish that it's satirizing the Boston Massacre, it's not our job to do it for them. I recall that in the Futurama episode All the Presidents' Heads, in which the characters inadvertently alter the past so that England quashed the American Revolution (which was then called the "colonial dust-up", and North America becomes "West Britannia"), there were other references to important historic events with politely neutered English names, and one of those may have been the "Boston misunderstanding". But that's pretty obscure trivia; our article on the episode doesn't mention it, and neither does The Infosphere. The page has one hit in the 80-some days before the nomination. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:12, 14 May 2021 (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.

Jose Fraction[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 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a term used in the article. No search results or importance. - The9Man (Talk) 09:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fixed malformed nomination, you need to specify the target of the redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just used Twinkle. Thanks anyway. - The9Man (Talk) 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Jose faction". The name is a typo. The target article too needs to cleanup. Jay (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to "Jose faction" and then Delete "Jose Fraction". Jay (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Renaming redirects is usually a bad idea. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! I can keep going over this for hours and still not be wiser: If a redirect page does not redirect to the page it would need to be redirecting to, then the only viable strategy that respects page histories is to adapt the redirect on that page, without moving the page. Jay (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving preserves page history. Jay (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving confuses page history. And there's not that much to preserve. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleaned up the target article and replaced fraction with faction everywhere. Jay (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fraction (politics) redirects to parliamentary group, though I can't tell whether it's a WP:FORRED or what. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:01, 5 May 2021 (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.

Template:Strnumber[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 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirects User:GKFXtalk 11:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep spelling variation, and expected that function names should be singular, at least to search it out -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Duplicate text by both me and 67.70 merged — User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a convention among these functions to start them with Str_ rather than just Str, in the interests of readability: see Template:String-handling templates. While it's not perfectly consistent it does mean that these redirects are less useful, and as can be seen no-one has transcluded them. User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They look like other programming/macro language forms for these functions, so good for WP:RKEEP searching for these templates. Being unused isn't a specific WP:RDELETE; and generally redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I think these two should remain if there's no other reason to delete them -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 15:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as unused templates (if people were actually using them, then sure, but they're not. We should really have a form of PROD for this). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a redirect, not a template, and the template itself is used. Unused redirects are not a defined deletion criterion for redirects -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I don't see the harm in these redirects, but they are currently in use a combined 0 times, which strongly suggests that WP:RFD#K5 does not apply. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:09, 17 May 2021 (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.

Page merge[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. ✗plicit 14:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful/confusing redirect. Used to redirect cross-namespace to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers before being turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page Merge (disambiguation) where I see no relevant entry. (There is a hatnote linking to Wikipedia:Merging there, however.) Delete, or perhaps redirect to Kernel same-page merging instead? Tea2min (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not useful, no links or views. Jay (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target does not disambiguate this term, and it is otherwise ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2021 (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.

Power armor in Warhammer[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of power armour in the target article. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know the history of this. Many years ago, in the page on Power armor, there was a detailed discussion about how it is used in the one case. I created a page called Power Armor in Warhammer, moved the details, and left a summary and link in the Power Armor article. I suspect that, in the years since, someone folded that into the general Warhammer page, and put in a redirect. Then someone must have updated the Warhammer page. I have no opinion about what the Warhammer page should contain. My only interest had been cleaning up the Power Armor page. Stuart Strahl (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out what happened here. You split the warhammer 40,000 material out of the power armour article and put it in a separate page during cleanup. The content was then merged into a general article on warhammer 40,000 equipment at Equipment of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). This page was then moved to Equipment of the Imperium, then Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000, under which title it was deleted in 2011 following the AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. For some reason a bot had retargeted this redirect to the main Warhammer 40,000 article in 2010, so this was missed for G8 deletion when cleaning up after the article deletion. Either way the content in the page history has been through AfD (I think), the article the redirect is supposed to be targeting hasn't existed for a decade and the current target doesn't include anything relevant, so I think this can be deleted. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2021 (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.

Template:Cote web[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned typo redirect with 2 pageviews; implausible to touch type ({{Vopr ern}} is a more likely typo) Dudhhr (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirect#K5. When I created it, there was at least one transclusion, which violated the guideline at WP:REDNOT and clutters up reports like Special:WantedTemplates. The existence of such a transclusion demonstrates that it is a plausible typo (the letter "o" is one letter away from "i" on the keyboard). The documentation at {{R from misspelling}} says: Use this rcat template in any namespace. The template is orphaned because at least one editor regularly fixes transclusions of redirects that are typos based on this report and other pages like it. It should be trivial for a bot to fix transclusions of templates that are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, if having them around is a problem. RFD closer: Please note that I have cited multiple guidelines in my !vote. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual policy says A) to create redirects for likely misspellings, and "one person did this once in 21 years" isn't evidence of that; and B) mildly discourages redirects in templatespace compared to other namespaces. You also seem to be very confused about where the guidelines come from. —Cryptic 03:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide a link to this policy? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created in response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Implausible typo not in use on any page. No more useful than previously deleted examples such as {{ctie book}} (deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book). Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as this was very obviously created to make a point about a deletion discussion the creator disagreed with, and serves no other purpose. Delete on its own merit per DrKay and per the previous discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute news. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, propose that Jonesey95 be topic-banned from creation of redirects in any namespace. The solution to one typo transclusion "clutter[ing] up reports like Special:WantedTemplates" is to correct the single typo, not create a whole new redirect with its attendant maintenance issues just for a single error. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please strike this bad faith accusation immediately. I have provided a link showing that this typo was trancluded at the time of its creation, and I have provided links to guidelines and documentation showing why I created it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this might fall under WP:R3 as a recently created implausible typo. Creating a redirect for a single use typo is just silly - if there are 1 or two transclusions of a misspelled template then the obvious solution is to fix those transclusions, rather than making a load of redirects for every possible typo of "Cite web". 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typo redirects are for the benefit of readers, not editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If an editor writes {{cote web| then they should see a red link as this allows them to fix their mistake promptly. The existence of this redirect hides the mistake and leaves it for someone else to clean up. While this redirect is a "plausible typo" it is not actually useful. User:GKFXtalk 23:00, 13 May 2021 (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.

Patrice Synthea[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. ✗plicit 03:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target page. Listed as a writer or performer on 3 different albums (each with questionable notability) only in credits. Another WP:XY situation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 5 May 2021 (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.

Chris Candelaria[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. ✗plicit 03:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. Two Chris Candelarias turn up on a Wikipedia search. One as a musician who has contributed to a couple tracks to the band Collide as writer or performer, another as an Australian rules football player. No logical target per WP:XY. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 5 May 2021 (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/2021_May_5&oldid=1025487475"