Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2022.

Creationusuem[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 23:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a highly, highly unlikely typo. It would be more difficult to type this than the actual name. TNstingray (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google results suggest that creationuseum.org once redirected to creationmuseum.org (the website of the subject), but it no longer does and there are exactly zero uses not quoting that url, so this is very clearly not a common typo (although I guess it is easier to say than "creation museum"; given that I almost invariably typo "museum" as "musuem" I'm not in a position to say how easy it is to type this!). Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2022 (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.

Unicorn Museum[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 23:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate establishment in Los Angeles, not the Creation Museum in Petersburg. Delete as misleading. TNstingray (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2022 (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.

Geezus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Geezus

Human spider[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Human spider

God Save the King / God Save the Queen[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. The initial wave of delete votes came from not being given a purpose for this redirect. But when a purpose for keeping was provided, almost all participants who came in afterwards supported keeping. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was recreated after it has been deleted as cleanup of page move vandalism. In my opinion, we should not have "/" redirects with alternative names on either side of the slash. I am sending this to RfD rather than tagging it with CSD R3 since there could be a doubt. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as there's more then one monarch. Also, assuming this deals with the British monarch. The page God Save the King can always be changed, if/when a queen ascends the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; this should be deleted. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful and unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect has been re-creating by the user (which has been deleted per cleanup in page move vandalism) it should be deleted. HurricaneEdgar 12:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless redirect.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is an unlikely search term. TartarTorte 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: why do we even need it? ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a plausible way to show there are multiple acceptable names (especially when discussing the anthem across time periods that encompass monarchs of different genders). To defend this specific format, this is the same formatting that one would find for dual naming in the Commonwealth realm of New Zealand (eg: Aoraki / Mount Cook). -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that Aoraki / Mount Cook is the official name due to the Ngai Tahu Settlement in 1998.[1] TartarTorte 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The dual name is increasingly becoming the common name also (however, not necessarily in this exact format – print media seemingly aren't happy to waste a character either side to make a forward slash look prettier), for what it's worth. J947 † edits 03:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Seems a plausible way to search for this given there are two related names. No benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect is an unlikely search term and is not necessary. I simply cannot envision somebody going into google and typing in "God Save the King / God Save the Queen" to try to look up this song, given its length. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Right up there IMO as one of the most grammatically-correct ways to refer to a both-sides–spaced dual name. I don't believe this esoteric belief of mine stems only from NZ dual naming (I'm an NZer), aside from the fact that I see the style more often. Plausible enough. J947 † edits 03:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the article begins "God Save the King" or "God Save the Queen" there's nothing wrong with this style (see MOS:SLASH: "A spaced slash may be used ... to separate items that include at least one internal space"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ngai Tahu Settlement". Beehive: The official website of the New Zealand Government.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible enough, and redirects are cheap. BilCat (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a perfectly good alternative title for the song and the saying for someone wanting to have it both ways, such as on sheet music. Also, redirects are cheap. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song alternates between these two titles on a schedule, so an inclusive title is a plausible search term and likely to be used elsewhere in contexts where only one title is allowed. Glades12 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The song's title will continue to alternate throughout time, so that's a plausible title for the article. I also second J947's point on dual naming in that regard. Regards, SONIC678 00:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have live articles that use slashes in the title to account for competing names, namely Meridian Hill/Malcolm X Park. Thrakkx (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2022 (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.

William H. Brooks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#William H. Brooks

Mermaids:Real or Fake?[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 23:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search format, and does not seem to be the name of a documentary or anything like that. Looks like a similar situation as the chupacabra redirect I nominated earlier. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is content in the history here, but it is more essay than article and while I can't call it original research given the included reference, I think it would be unlikley an admin would decline an A10 (duplicate article) speedy deletion here. If someone does feel it needs to go to AfD though, I'll happily withdraw my vote in favour of that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:CSD#A10 says the article has to be recently created. This essay was written in August 2014, so A10 doesn't apply. Glades12 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, good point. I must have glossed over the dates in the edit history. I've struck my delete recommendation as we really shouldn't be deleting non-speediable article content at RfD that hasn't been subject to a consensus discussion in an appropriate venue (and RfD is not one of those). There isn't any chance this would be kept - at best there would be scope for a sub-article of Mermaid covering debates about the realism or otherwise of mermaids but such and article would not be at this title and the essay in the page history would not serve as a useful base for that without liberal application of TNT, so sending to AfD is probably the best we can do here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible as a search term and as a foundation for article content. -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some Youtube videos under that name, but they don't seem related to the pages earlier content.--Auric talk 23:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no Mermaids namespace. Regardless of content, there's a missing space after the colon. HotdogPi 20:10, 22 September 2022 (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.

Lukę Skywalker (Star Wars)[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 23:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary specification with the caudata. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2022 (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.

Leka, Crown Prince of Albania[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 speedy close. A move discussion is already underway at Talk:Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (born 1939)#Requested move 17 September 2022. - Eureka Lott 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to move Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (born 1939) into this article, removing the redirect to Leka, and to move Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (born 1982) into Leka, Prince of Albania. The younger Leka never was and is not the Crown Prince of Albania, as his father (the older Leka) never was the King of Albania. The younger Leka is just the current head of the Royal House of Albania. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2022 (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.

Noitaton hsilop esrever[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Noitaton hsilop esrever

Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro[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! 21:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to move Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro into this article, removing the redirect to Nicholas I of Montenegro. Nicholas I is widely recognized as King of Montenegro, despite having worn the title "Prince of Montenegro" before. The other Nicholas never was and is not the Crown Prince of Montenegro, as his father (properly titled Michael, Prince of Montenegro) never was the King of Montenegro. Nicholas is just the current head of the Royal House of Montenegro, just as his father Michael was. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2022 (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.

Thud (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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:31, 17 September 2022 (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.

Arupa[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. Given that the AfD was incredibly recent, I also factored in those participants' comments against a redirect. Legoktm (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arupa page was just deleted following AfD with no redirect as it was not considered a searchable concept. New redirect is to section on Rupa (form). ‘Arupa’ is the antonym of rupa (formless) so not unrelated, but neither would the redirect make sense. Not sure if this is a candidate for speedy, but I don’t have strong opposition to a redirect - as long as any redirect is reasonable. Thus a discussion is in order. My own view is it should be deleted though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's redirected to section describing arupa though as a large topic vast majority humans think exists (at least hundreds equivalent/translations to all largest and most/all languuges & religions, Ancient Greek philosophy to modern dualism & German Idealism) should become proper dual-topic article like 'Apollonian and Dionysian', 'Id, ego, and superego', etc.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 09:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the section it redirects to is about ‘rupa jhānas’ mindfulness of breathing and has a single sentence about arupa as a ‘realm’, but with a verification needed template against it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No; as stated, the section is 'rupa jhanas' or 'rupa realms' but describes beyond them 'arupa realms' (breathing is merely a topic someone described there), which has been there years: I'm not the person who added their mention/description--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 09:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to suggest that you added it. It was added in this edit: [1] but the reference in that edit is just a note and not a citation. There has never been any source for the claim and it could be reverted at any time by an editor as an unsourced claim. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are four or more equivalent articles (potentially hundreds/thousands): formlessness. SpokenSanskrit.de (now .org) was the first easily-findable/-searchable online Sanskrit dictionary by mid-'0s and redirects: 'Learn Sanskrit:arupa', and putting the Sanskrit/Devanagari into Google Translate:Sanskrit:arupa confirms (though hasn't finished Sanskrit translation and drops 'a' at end which some dialects in India do for some/all words). Talk:Rūpa mentions 'rupa & arupa' meanings in two of five Dharma philosophies/religions, which the rest use both within most/all of typically dozens schools of thought, so 'rupa & arupa' presumably has hundreds meanings--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are about Arupa, but if all four are places we could redirect to then that proves there is no single natural redirect target and so this redirect should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about retargeting to Dhyana_in_Buddhism#The_arūpa_āyatanas? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are about it in other languages & philosophies. It started in Hinduism and was copied into Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Ayyavazhi so is inappropriate to redirect to a Buddhist rather than general article--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anythingyouwant - Thanks, that is a better target. The creator's arguments do seem to me to be arguing there is no single target so it should be deleted. I don't mind the retarget though (albeit I doubt it is a search term on its own). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a worse 'target' (as described), and opposite what I argued, and just as much a search term as 'rupa'. There are many similar redirects (for years) a topic mostly discussed in relation to another is redirected to the more well-known/easy topic (like the current redirect)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above discussion demonstrates why no redirect was chosen at AfD last week.[2] Although I never opposed a redirect, no good redirect target was available. The creator has never been very clear about what the concept means and here says "'rupa & arupa' presumably has hundreds meanings". Thus per WP:RFD#DELETE: 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine, and 8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. This redirect should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been 100% clear, as is the section redirected to: even linked Sanskrit (not 'novel'... an ancient dead, still-understood language) dictionaries (oldest website one I knew of, and even Google Translate) which give the main definition used in that section. Even if that basic meaning has more detailed descriptions/elaborations/interpretations by dozens/hundreds schools of thought that's no reason there should be no redirect (rather than it has more notability, as philosophical concepts tend to when not limited to one school of thought). Rupa page references starting at arupa were described to have been messed up but still findable (details in source code) which I was unable to find but added a new one. Now that Anythingyouwant mentioned a case of 'arupa' usage, it's clear the original article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place rather than linking it and usage in rupa--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 13:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up the word in a dictionary is not a source! No one doubts it is the antonym of rupa (form). Understandable you did not find the old source though. In July 2019 an editor added this as a source: [[Dhyāna in Buddhism#cite%20note-19|[16]]] which sources off of a footnote on another page. A terrible idea! Even if you restore it, it now takes you to the wrong footnote because that page has been updated and the numbers have changed. I found the footnote 19 as it was on that date in July, and it has this text: According to Peter Harvey, access concentration is described at Digha Nikaya I, 110, among other places: "The situation at D I, 110, then, can be seen as one where the hearer of a discourse enters a state which, while not an actual jhana, could be bordering on it. As it is free from hindrances, it could be seen as 'access' concentration with a degree of wisdom." Peter Harvey, Consciousness Mysticism in the Discourses of the Buddha. In Karel Werner, ed., The Yogi and the Mystic. Curzon Press 1989, page 95. See also: Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind, page 170. So then I tracked down the book here: [3] and confirmed that not only does page 95 say nothing about Arupa, but the word is not found in the book at all. And this is stuff we have been over before! You are making arupa something it is not. No sources, no merge targets. The only notable information with that word is Dhyana in Buddhism#The arūpa āyatanas. The redirect either goes there or it should be deleted. My preference is the latter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate or merge/move/rename or disambiguate: Dictionaries are sources, and other Sanskrit Hindu & Jain philosophy/metaphysics 'arupa' usage (such as 'Jyoti_(goddess)', 'Kamakshi_Amman_Temple', 'Parameshwara_(god)#According_to_Shaiva_Siddhanta', 'Siddha', thousands more) predates Buddhism by up to at least tens thousands years so should remain redirected to most general (not Buddhist) usage. Current usage in several WP articles is enough reason to recreate the arupa article or combine in a move of rupa to 'rupa and arupa'. As for redirect, there are many similar cases, such as applied analysis is redirected to engineering analysis, and pre/trans fallacy redirects to Ken Wilber as part of his theories, as do dozens philosophy & science/mathematics articles to wider subjects... no one's saying all engineering analysis is applied analysis, nor that Wilber is the pre/trans fallacy, nor that arupa is rupa, just related topics are grouped together unless/until get dedicated articles. Apparently Arupa is also a name in India, whether forename or surname or male or female, I don't know--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So four more pages that all use arupa in passing to describe something as formless. This appears to demonstrate the redirect should be deleted. There is no substantive article and per WP:RFD#DELETE: 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Of course it is not similarly named articles. None of the articles are named, but by redirecting arupa to one page, we ensure no one can find that e.g., Jyoti (goddess) is formless (arupa). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my vote. Those so quick to delete past substansive article should've checked arupa is mentioned in these five places, to confirm it should've been kept/expanded or merged/moved/renamed or disambiguated. Some/several other WP articles also discuss later Hindu usage equivalent to Buddhist usage, which of course was derived from Hinduism in the first place (but may need other sources, others being http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39442/39442.txt, http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Sarupa-vigraha, http://shaivam.org/daily-prayers-hindu-prayer-hub/forms-of-grace http://hindu.org.au/pooja/, and Manly P Hall's Invisible Bodies of Men in Hindu Philosophy, his backed up by http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2013/jun/20/Deities-of-cosmos-weigh-the-deeds-of-each-personality-488655.html etc.). I now see arupa also refers to formless idols such as rocks associated with gods such as Shiva (again predating Buddhism tens thousands years) in contrast to statues of gods. As used to describe such things and also in metaphysics (the immaterial, nonphysical) and a name it should probably be a disambiguation (if not merged with rupa)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 09:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I do hope someone else can comment on this. An editor (not me and not known to me) has now changed the page this redirect points to and removed the redirect target section (as I predicted could happen). So in summary, this now points to a non existent section of a page that does not mention the subject. The creator of the redirect has found multiple pages that briefly mention things as being formless, but there is no coverage of arupa as an actual concept anywhere. I do feel this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at the 2008 discussion at the target talk page Talk:Rūpa#Arupa where Larry Rosenfeld said that Arupa can mean things other than jhana, such as in the context of tiloka and dhatu. He also said arupa needn't be the opposite of rupa, so a RCAT of anytonym will not be preferred if retargeted to the Rupa page, and not a section. I support Dchmelik that Arupa could be an article, or a disambiguation if someone can prepare a draft for it, but for now delete as an unhelpful redirect. Jay 💬 10:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Requesting close or relist of this. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (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.

Trololololololololololo[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. ✗plicit 10:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that someone would type this in. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2022 (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.

User:ColonelHenry/sandbox/Delaware River[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#User:ColonelHenry/sandbox/Delaware River

Wikipedia redirect help[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 on whether the help for newbies given by this redirect is worth overruling our usual distaste for this kind of cross-namespace redirect. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from article namespace and unlikely search term. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this is an unlikely search term; it's entirely plausible that someone who doesn't know the exact page name would search this looking for that target, especially if they're not familiar with the Wikipedia "space" system. – Scyrme (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scyrme - unambiguous and likely helpful for users who haven't learned about namespaces yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree this is not a likely enough search term to overlook the cross-namespace issue. -- Tavix (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR not useful for the readership, the internal workings of Wikipedia is not an audience topic. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite useful as it's an extremely common search term for this topic, there also is no other redirect to said page, so such a redirect is required. Furthermore, I believe any cross-namespace issue is worth ignoring considering how helpful this is to assisting new users in finding the page with the info needed to improve their contributions-- Sxbbetyy (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly why it should be deleted, because it is not for new users. It is for new editors. New users would just be confused, since new users are readers and not editors. It does not help new users of Wikipedia, it harms new users of Wikipedia by directing them to non-encyclopedic content that is not relevant to reading Wikipedia. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how this is harmful to readers, as has been suggested above. It's not like someone would accidentally stumble upon this expecting an article. The phrase does not resemble a search for an article. It's harmless to readers, and helpful for new editors (many of whom probably are or have been readers, since these aren't actually mutually exclusive groups). – Scyrme (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entrypoint to entire Help via MediaWiki: Sidebar. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can take people directly to the content they are looking for or we can insist that instead they:
  1. Identify that there is a help link in the sidebar
  2. Click the link to arrive at Help:Contents
  3. Read 6 or 7 sections of help until they find something relevant to what they are looking for "Navigating Wikipedia"
  4. Click again, to be taken to Help:Menu/Navigating Wikipedia
  5. Read the whole page and realise it doesn't have what they are looking for
  6. Either go back to the previous page to try again or click the link to Help:Contents/Directory to see if what they want is listed there (I'll assume they do this)
  7. Click "How to use redirect pages" in the list (this probably isn't what they are looking for, but it's probably going to have a link to that)
  8. Read the whole lead at Wikipedia:Redirect (where their last click brought them) probably tells them mostly what they already know
  9. If they think the help they are looking for is "technical" then they'll click the link to Help:Redirect, if not they'll likely click "How to make a redirect" in the Table of contents, possibly then clicking the link to Help:Redirect or Wikipedia:How to make a redirect which are described as the "Main pages".
Only after at least 5 clicks (possibly several more) and a lot of reading do they finally arrive at a place with the information that they would have had sooner, with less effort, less potential confusion and absolutely less frustration if their first search had worked. It's clear that only one of these options is actually helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf's excellent analysis directly above. I don't understand the concerns of some delete voters that "readers" would be confused by this - I see no reason why a reader would search "Wikipedia redirect help," but I see many reasons why new editors would search for this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 02:29, 17 September 2022 (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.

Delaware Valley River[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Delaware Valley River

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_17&oldid=1114539019"