Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2023.

YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a joke redirect of a non-existent name; the actual name is an acronym so the "YOU" in this redirect title is pointless and made-up. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name is common in anti-spam circles and reflects the facts that
  1. CAN-SPAM does not actually outlaw spam
  2. CAN-SPAM nullifies state laws that actually did outlaw spam
The law is the result of DMA lobbying and was carefully crafted to not do what the title promised. That, alas, is very common in US legislation.
NB: I'm not claiming that other countries are better, just that I lack the data to do a comparison. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The "You-Can-Spam" name is mentioned in the article. The fact that the "YOU" isn't an acronym is obviously irrelevant and not the point of the joke. A Google search will reveal that it is commonly used, perhaps not with "of 2003" afterwards, but the redirect isn't confusing, ambiguous or causing any problems. MClay1 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mclay1. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mclay1. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the 2003 afterwards per MClay1. Using the joke along with the year attempts to pass this off as a genuine act name. We already have YOU-CAN-SPAM Act and You-Can-Spam Act to support the "YOU". Jay 💬 07:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to "You-Can-Spam" or something like that per Jay. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Metz and MClay1, and per WP:RNEUTRAL. It clearly is a name used to refer to the act, even if it's incorrect, and the article explains the use of the incorrect name as criticism. Moving redirects is generally pointless, and I'm not convinced that adding the year confers legitimacy, and even if it did, refer back to RNEUTRAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. I do see versions of this name in sources on Google Books. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom[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. While delete was the most popular option by a small margin, it falls short of even clinching a majority, let alone a consensus. Editors disagreed on whether this is a plausible search term, and the degree to which the term is erroneous or misleading, but no side has a decisive policy-based advantage. signed, Rosguill talk 06:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading, wrong information. Obviously prone to confuse laypersons with Queen Mary of England, aka Mary I of England. An unqualified “Queen”, devoid of reference to her King, implies a Queen Regnant. Redirect was created only to make a point, not for any utility, and this is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting to a dab page, or other pages, only makes matters worse. More hatnotes makes more clutter on in the prime real estate of articles. Anyone entering the exact text into the search box is perfectly well served by the internal search function. No one should be linking this string, because it is a poor way to refer to the article, and should not be encouraged as a recommended option, which is what I guess is the only reasonable motivation to create the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an entry to Mary of Teck any normal person would ever use. Whether the redirect was created to make a point I leave to others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been only one Queen Mary who has been Queen of the United Kingdom and that's Mary, wife of George V. Listing other redirects here is pointless. And a queen consort is a queen just as a queen regnant is a queen, or a queen dowager is a queen. There's no such rule that states queens consort or dowager are "unqualified" queens as the nominator is implying here. The only difference is in their rank. Regnant, consort, dowager, regent are noun adjuncts, defining a queen's rank. And "Queen of the United Kingdom", "Queen of England", "Queen of France", etc. do not imply that the given queen is necessarily queen regnant. We have Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary, Queen of Hungary, and Maria, Queen of Sicily who were queens regnant. On the other hand we have Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, Marie of Lusignan, Queen of Aragon, Marie of Luxembourg, Queen of France, Maria of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile, Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia, Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Mary Tudor, Queen of France, Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Germany, Elisabeth of Carinthia, Queen of the Romans, Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of the Belgians, etc. all of whom were queens consort. And the accusation that the redirect was "created only to make a point" is baseless and untrue. This is a name that has been used in different forms by other sources, including the Royal Collection Trust that calls her Queen Mary of the United Kingdom. And there's no point that needs to be made anyway. It's like saying Sonja, Queen of Norway should not exist as a redirect because the creator was trying to make a point! Keivan.fTalk 05:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just who is going to realistically type in the search box "Mary <comma> Queen of the United Kingdom"? I don't think anyone, and we don't create redirects just to create one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an assumption though. Would someone type Sonja, Queen of Norway or Rania, Queen of Jordan, to search for those queens? Maybe yes, maybe not. Yet no one can say they are not useful. As long as the redirect is accurate and helpful there's no reason that it should not remain. And given the fact that a source like Encyclopædia Britannica has the words "queen of Great Britain" right under Mary's name there might be people who could search for May, Queen of Great Britain/the United Kingdom/the UK and that is what a redirect is for; to assist with finding a target. Keivan.fTalk 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Name <comma> title <"of"> place" is a grammatically correct and entirely normal way to refer to royalty/nobility, and this is reinforced by the many articles with titles in exactly that format which set a predictable pattern that readers are likely to follow when searching. Seems entirely plausible to me and I'm surprised you think otherwise. – Scyrme (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to one of the comments above, the string is fine and it is not a poor way to refer to the article because in no way it implies that she was a queen regnant which is what the core of the nominator's issue with this redirect is. Not to mention that the format has been used by outside sources. It has nothing to do with putting forth a single format as a "recommended" option either. People can choose what format to use based on the flow of the article. The whole argument that each queen consort should have the word "consort" attached to their title as an adjunct or "qualifier" does not hold up. We have no such rule and countless redirects and outside material prove that. Sonja Haraldsen is the queen consort of Norway. Based on that logic, she should not be referred to as Sonja, Queen of Norway, but I guess it is not okay to refer to her as Queen Sonja of Norway either due to the fact that the latter format just like the first one does not make it clear whether she is a queen consort or queen regnant. And frankly, it doesn't matter. She is simply The Queen of Norway just as Mary was simply The Queen of the United Kingdom. That's what their actual titles are. And an article title or redirect is always used in a text with the necessary context provided so the chances of anyone mistaking these women for queens regnant is slim. Keivan.fTalk 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SmokeyJoe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term. If kept, redirect to Queen Mary as an incomplete disambiguation from other Queen Marys of England. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Queen Mary disambiguation page. MClay1 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keivan.f. It's unambiguous (Mary I was never Queen of the United Kingdom) and redirects are cheap. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. This is cheap, but it is also ambiguous as to whether someone is searching for a queen consort not commonly known by this name or a much more widely known queen regnant but are mistaken about her domain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mary of England (n.b.: not Queen Mary). I'd normally advocate for a straight keep in such an instance, but I'm concerned about reading navigability from Mary of Teck to Mary I or Mary II, which are similarly common I'd imagine. A hatnote on Mary of Teck would be rarely-used (like this redirect: rarely-used but still helpful enough). Therefore I'll weakly opt for the cowardly dab target over the correct target. J947 † edits 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Keivan.f and Presidentman. Minor errors and misconceptions like this should be corrected not humoured as equally valid targets. "...of England" is unambiguously wrong, and retargets misleading. An extra hatnote with {{distinguish}} (Not to be confused with...) pointing to the disambiguation page is sufficient to help someone misinformed and looking for someone else. – Scyrme (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option for a hatnote could {{redirect}} ("Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. For "Mary, Queen of England", see Mary of England.). I'm not sure whether the wording given by "distinguish" or "redirect" would be more helpful.
    Perhaps the best option would be to use {{hatnote}} to write a custom one that combines the best of both. Something like: "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" redirects here. Not to be confused with Mary, Queen of England. – Scyrme (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there was Mary II of England who was Queen of Scotland and England and Ireland -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United Kingdom did not exist during Mary II's reign. Keivan.fTalk 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a useful redirect. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly misleading title.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is an accurate description of Mary of Teck hopelessly misleading? – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Mary, Queen of Scotland is misleading as well? In fact it would be even more misleading by that logic since there were other queens of Scotland named Mary, albeit they were queens by virtue of marriage. And what is even misleading here? Mary of Teck was Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of George V. Mary I and Mary II were not queens of the United Kingdom, and as an encyclopedia we should not spread incorrect information by retargeting this redirect IMO. It's like changing the target for Elizabeth, Queen of England, or Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, arguing that people might think Elizabeth II was Queen of England or that Elizabeth I was Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, they might, and it is an encyclopedia's job to correct them not to mislead them, and a hatnote would be sufficient for that purpose. And as Scyrme said, the format "Name <comma> Title of Place" is an entirely common and valid format on Wikipedia. Not to mention multiple sources that describe Mary of Teck as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "mary of teck was queen of the united kingdom" is only correct if George V is mentioned in the same sentence. Standing alone, it is incorrect because it implies Queen regnant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching around en.wp demonstrates rapidly that a Queen should not be automatically assumed to be queen regnant. The more I think about this the more surprised I am that you would think not that it is slightly misleading (which it is), but that it is incorrect – this might well be much more obvious to people living in a monarchy (assuming you are from the U.S.), who are the significant proportion of readers searching this phrase. J947 † edits 08:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “Should not” is irrelevant compared to “is”. I am thinking only of written references to last queens, not current usage anywhere. When referring to an historical queen, only queens regnant are introduced simply as queen. Queens consort are introduced with reference to their king. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Here's the grave of Catherine of Aragon describing her as Katharine, Queen of England, devoid of any reference to Henry VIII. And Catherine of England even redirects to her page which is a format mostly used for monarchs (e.g. Elizabeth of Russia), but I doubt any reader would find it confusing after reading the first few words of the article. So no, in a real word setting no one would assume that "Queen of [Place]" is a queen regnant. Keivan.fTalk 13:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Catherine if Aragon is an unusual case. In her lifetime, her status as legal wife of Henry was in dispute, by herself, her followers, and during the rule of her daughter, Queen Mary, Catherine’s status as legal wife connected to recognition of Mary’s claim to inherit.
    At the time of her funeral, Henry was the long ruling and uncontested King. Contrary to the king’s instructions, Catherine styled herself as Queen, as did her supporters, and funeral and burial of her as Queen, not Dowager Princess of Wales, was a political statement, during the lifetime of the King. My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime, and shortly after, but when time passes, their are either noted as Queen consort, or introduced with mention of their King. The example dates from soon after her death and during the rule of Henry. The Catherine of Aragon example does not generalise to all queen consorts.
    Your redirect fails to note either “consort” or that her position derived from George V. Why did you create this redirect? It seems part of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style with “consort”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Catherine of Aragon was "Queen of England" during her marriage, and so were Henry VIII's other five wives. All six of them have been described as such. This has nothing to do with making a political statement. In fact, Catherine's grave was upgraded during George V's reign by his wife Queen Mary. And I think she as a princess and then as a queen had a better idea than either you or me of how a queen consort should be described.
    My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime. I'm afraid this is WP:OR. Never in my life I have seen a queen consort being described as an "unqualified" queen. This is something that you have entirely come up with. And your allegations of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style [sic] with “consort” are unfounded. This has nothing to do with Camilla and her situation, a divorcee who was initially going to be styled princess consort. She is the exception here, not Mary who like all the other queens consort was simply called "The Queen" (check this and all the other entries on previous queens on the Government's London Gazette). You're making connections left, right and center when none actually exist.
    Do sources describe Mary as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain? Yes, they do. Have there been any other queens of the United Kingdom (regnant or consort) named Mary? No. Are there any sources that suggest she and thousands of other queens consort were not really queens? No, none exists. The fact that they hold the title by virtue of marriage does not make their position unreal. It's like saying Catherine, Princess of Wales is an not really Princess of Wales since she holds the title by virtue of marriage, so she should be called "Princess Consort of Wales". And upon seeing the phrase "Queen of [Place]" no one assumes that the woman is a queen regnant. In fact, when thinking of a global audience, one could easily see that in many countries queens and empresses have been mostly wives of monarchs, and it's the queens regnant that are rare. Keivan.fTalk 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keivan.f: You've misunderstood. "Unqualified" means without an adjective or additional description (a qualifier) like "consort" or "regnant". – Scyrme (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scyrme: I see. Thanks for the clarification. My mind was preoccupied with his comment here where he stated Mary was never a real queen, only a Queen consort and my brain made a connection between that statement and this one. Thus, I thought by unqualified he meant unreal. In any case my response stands. Consort and regnant are simply noun adjuncts defining the word "Queen". It's not as if one rank is the real deal and the other one doesn't count. Keivan.fTalk 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Common English is lacking. Queen can mean two different things, Queen Regnant, and Queen Consort. The two are different, with the very clear hard line distinction, despite the usage of “Queen” for both.
    You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary?
    I ask again, why did you create this redirect? Who might it help?
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Distinction is not always required. Empress Suiko was empress regnant of Japan. Masako, Empress of Japan is the current empress consort of Japan. They can both be described as "Empress of Japan" even though their rank is different.
    You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary? I never said that. I said the correct target for the redirect would be Mary of Teck, because she has been the only queen (regnant or consort) to ever be Queen of the United Kingdom. Just as Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III because there have been no other kings of the United Kingdom named Charles. The issue of confusion with other queens regnant or consort can be addressed with a hatnote.
    I ask again, why did you create this redirect? Because she has been described as Queen of the United Kingdom in various different sources, and anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that [Name] <comma> [Title] of [Place] is a format we commonly use here. I listed dozens of articles and redirects with the exact same format. And unlike what you were trying to suggest it is not part of a current campaign to alter Camilla's title or anything like that. I really doubt a redirect on Wikipedia would influence the palace's decisions. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the redirects you listed were correct longer forms, of the form Mary of Teck, Queen of the United Kingdom. The longer form are not likely to confuse. Mixed short form / long form, like Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom, are likely to confuse, are confusing, are are weird, and are more suitable for a trivia question than a redirect inviting other users to make use of. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those examples you are referring to are of articles titles, which to some extent have to adhere to WP:CONSORTS. That pattern should not necessarily be followed for redirects and in fact it has not been followed. As an example, we have Sonja, Queen of Norway as a redirect not Sonja Haraldsen, Queen of Norway. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mary was the only Queen of the United Kingdom by her name. Confusion with Mary I or II of England is highly unlikely. While the format "Name, Queen of X" may indicate a Queen regnant under WP:NCROY, (eg. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, apart from that it does not have to.--Estar8806 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think confusion is "highly unlikely" given that there is widespread confusion between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom for present-day, e.g. there are many sources describing Charles III has "King of Great Britain", including the Foreign Ministry of Oman and Brussels Times. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet Charles, King of the United Kingdom rightly redirects to Charles III, not to Charles II of England or Charles I of England. And I don't believe we need to change that because some website mistakenly describes him as king of Great Britain. Keivan.fTalk 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That redirect exists because Charles III is unquestionably the primary topic for that search term and so it's irrelevant here. My point is that the assertion that nobody will confuse a queen of the United Kingdom with a queen of Great Britain is demonstrably false. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If people may get confused between the UK and Great Britain, then based on that logic they can confuse the UK with England as well, which means that Charles can also be confused with his predecessors. In any case, it's not an issue that a hatnote cannot solve. And I'm not vehemently opposed to regathering if there's a consensus for that, but I'm certainly against deletion. Keivan.fTalk 23:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the hatnote, which would you prefer of the ones I suggested above (right under my "keep" recommendation)? – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think both of them are fine. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More hatnotes to paper of the the problems of not-helpful unwanted redirects, is a worse option to “delete”. Not every technically correct term should be created as a redirect. If there was no good reason to create it, delete it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just a hypothetical "technically correct" description, it's one that has been used outside Wikipedia, examples of which can be found by searching the phrase on Google Books. eg. Royalty Who Wait (2001) which lists her as "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" in its index. It's not implausible that someone would describe her in this way (objectively, they already have), and therefore not implausible that someone would find this redirect helpful. Of-course, I'm sure you'd rather people use the search bar instead; we should probably just agree to disagree about whether it is "helpful". – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. The point is context. It is not normal to refer to a Queen consort as an unqualified queen unless it is already in the context of the king, unless the king is already introduced or will be in the same breath.
    An index isn’t much of a precedent.
    The problem with this redirect is that it invites standalone use, and it’s prone to confuse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem likely to me that someone would use this as a standalone link in an article where the context doesn't make clear which "Mary" is the "Queen of the United Kingdom" (such as by naming the relevant King or establishing the year/century). Even if it were used without any additional context, the link itself would make it clear which "Mary" is the relevant one (just click or hover). If the phrase "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" were linked in the wrong context, the link would make it easier to find/notice the mistake and fix it, since either Mary, Queen of England, should not be referred to as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in any article. It's more likely such a mistake would be missed if the text were not linked.
    If this is retargetted rather than kept, then any unintentional use of the link would be discouraged. The link would be likely to get replaced by a more specific one which would resolve any potential confusion. – Scyrme (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is important within an article, but it's not as if someone is going to see "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" and say, oh she must have been a queen regnant then. Based on that logic we should not use Queen Mathilde of Belgium anywhere in a prose alone, because there's nothing in that name that suggests to me that the woman is a queen consort. The whole "Queen [Name] of [Place]" is a format entirely made up by Wikipedia for consorts. Also, I doubt anyone would support throwing the word "consort" as a qualifier into Mathilde's name because she's simply Queen of the Belgians or "The Queen" just like Mary was simply "The Queen" with no adjuncts or qualifiers attached to her title. Keivan.fTalk 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "(title) name of place"/"name(, title) of place" format isn't made up by Wikipedia, and isn't used exclusively for consorts. The name-title-place format is used for royalty and nobility in general. John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, follows "name <comma> title <of> place". It's used on Wikipedia because it's used in English in general. – Scyrme (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “Based on that logic we should”
    One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Earl of Shrewsbury's article has the format "[Name] [Surname], [Title] of [Place]". In that sense it would be similar to something like Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Queen of the United Kingdom. Not comparable in this instance. One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased. In cases when an article title needs to be chosen, yes, that is a "consideration", but there are exceptions such as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother who has been dead for 21 years. Also, that is not ground for deleting redirects. For example, should we delete Masako, Empress of Japan once she's deceased? I don't think so. Keivan.fTalk 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That the name of the Earl includes his surname is irrelevant to the point, and it doesn't help your case to insist that it matters. It does not help to argue that the format is exclusive to Wikipedia; the argument to keep the redirect is stronger if the format is used widely both on and off Wikipedia (a fact that happens to be true), as that makes it more plausible that someone would search for it. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Charles can be confused with his predecessors - that's the point. However, as the current king is very clearly the primary topic for the ambiguous terms they should lead to his articles. None of the queens are primary, it is equally likely that someone will be looking for the queen regnant or the queen consort, neither of whom are commonly known by this name, so should lead to disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects to disambiguation pages are usually minor spelling variants, plurals/singulars, or differences in case, not completely different titles that might share the same target. Wouldn't it likely surprise readers searching "of the United Kingdom" to get redirected to a page titled "of England"? Even a reader mistaken about the domain of the Mary they're looking for is likely to know that "United Kingdom" and "England" are not synonymous.
    I think a hatnote is a more appropriate way to disambiguate here, since that would allow some clarification to provided to the reader (rather than dropping them onto a disambiguation page with an already bloated "see also" section). – Scyrme (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no shortage of examples where one disambiguation page disambiguates multiple terms, meaning that some people are redirected to a page that has a different title to their search term. The way this is handled is that the first sentence of the disambiguation page lists all the terms that are disambiguated, this means that the problem you allege is unavoidable with a redirect to a disambiguation page is neither a problem nor unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about it being an "unavoidable" "problem". I asked a question. If you're confident that listing "of the United Kingdom" in the first sentence would be within the guidelines for disambiguation pages, then that's fine; I agree that explicitly adding it to the first sentence would mitigate any surprise. All the disambiguation page I've seen had a narrower range of variation, of the kind described at WP:DABCOMBINE. The combination you suggested isn't covered, but the guidelines aren't exhaustive; if you say there's a precedent, I believe you. My disagreement was based on retargetting to the disambiguation page in its current state, since neither you nor anyone else suggested modifying it.
    I can accept retargeting as a second preference, if this title is explicitly added to the first sentence and the link is raised out of "see also", assuming this does not contradict guidelines about disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusion is unlikely, perhaps not "highly" because, while you are correct in that Charles III is erroneously called "King of Great Britain" or "King of England", those are titles that were used by his predecessors. His predecessors were not called "Kings of the United Kingdom", because that title didn't exist.
    That may be worded a little poorly, so to get my point across, Elizabeth II of England redirects to Elizabeth II, but Mary I of the United Kingdom does not redirect to Mary I of England, because Mary I never would have been called Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom during her reign or has she been called by such a name since. Mary of Teck was the only Mary to be Queen of the United Kingdom. Estar8806 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Different disambiguation retarget targets have been suggested - Queen Mary and Mary of England, apart from the suggestion to add a hatnote at the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead an added the suggested hatnote to Mary of Teck, to make it clear what's being proposed. It can be replaced with a {{redirect}} or {{distinguish}} note if others would prefer something more concise. If this redirect gets retargeted, the hatnote can obviously be amended appropriately. (Or, of-course, removed if the redirect is deleted.) – Scyrme (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hatnote is a worse outcome. Why would anyone land at Mary of Teck thinking they were getting Mary, Queen of England. Because of this new redirect that no one will ever use.
    A featured article with almost 4000 views per day has an unnecessary hatnote, due to the existence of this redirect that helps who? SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of editors who have responded to this evidently think confusion is plausible, in which case the hatnote provides helpful clarification. Unless you persuade them otherwise, the hatnote should remain so long as the redirect exists. To be clear, I'm fine with removing the hatnote if there is agreement that the redirect by itself would not cause confusion. As for whether anyone would use the redirect, that's a separate matter. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusion is likely if they arrive at the page via a redirect, especially via it having been offered to them from the so called search box.
    Without the redirect, readers using the so called search box won’t be offered this title, and if the actually manually enter it in full they will get detailed search results.
    Using hatnotes to rescue confused readers helps them, but muddies that page header for the vast majority of readers of the page.
    The best solution is to not have redirects like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mary of Teck is the only Mary to have been Queen of the United Kingdom. Nobody else in the entire history of the earth has ever been both named Mary and also Queen of the United Kingdom. She was formally and officially The Queen from George V's ascension until his death, and then formally and officially Queen Mary until her own death. Queen consort/dowager/mother are not formal titles, they're titles of courtesy or respect, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon who was formally titled Queen Mother to distinguish her from her daughter, Elizabeth II. The title of King is exclusively given to and reserved for the Sovereign (Albert and Philip were both princes) but the same is not true of Queen, there are many Queens who were not the Sovereign. There is no such thing as an "inferior" Queen, there are just Queens. A few are also Sovereign, but the fact that Mary of Teck was not is irrelevant to her royal title. There's no confusion here that can't be handled with hatnotes, but we will certainly introduce confusion by redirecting this to a disambiguation page for Queens of a predecessor realm. I don't understand the accusation that the redirect was created in bad faith and it also doesn't matter at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: there have been ten Queens of the United Kingdom (counting Caroline of Ansbach who was Queen of Great Britain & Ireland, and excluding Camilla who hasn't yet been given the title). Three of those were also the Sovereign. Only one was named Mary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the redirect is technically unambiguous, if you assume all readers are fluent with the technicalities of the changing names of England, Britain, UK, etc. That’s not a good assumption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that this title had been used on Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge for many years before the redirect was created (as a piped link). No doubt Mary of Teck's title as Queen of the United Kingdom was used to distinguish her from her mother; using Mary of Teck directly would've been confusing. A similar title is used for her category on Commons (Category:Queen Mary of the United Kingdom). This similar variation has existed as a redirect on Wikipedia since 2006. (Queen Mary of the United Kingdom) I don't see any reason why moving the position of the word "Queen" would make this any less plausible. Contrary to the claims that no-one would ever use such a redirect, the stats for that redirect indicate that has been used fairly regularly. If people use Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, why not Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom?
Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen Mary of the United Kingdom should point to the same target, so I'm against retargeting one but not the other. – Scyrme (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: You recommended retargeting, but didn't specify a target. Retarget to Queen Mary or Mary of England? What about Queen Mary of the United Kingdom, which has been a redirect to Mary of Teck since 2006 without problems? Shouldn't they point to the same place? – Scyrme (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford and Mclay1: You both said you would prefer retargeting to Queen Mary if this is retargeted, but this was before J947 suggested Mary of England. Do you still prefer Queen Mary? – Scyrme (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that it was used on her mother's article without any objection shows that it is not a useless redirect. Thanks for bringing that up. And I also agree that both this redirect and "Queen Mary of the United Kingdom" should point to the same page and, if people are afraid of potential confusion, a hatnote can be added. That's how Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and Elizabeth of England have been handled. Keivan.fTalk 23:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme I think Queen Mary is a better target. Redirecting to Mary of England would be misleading – the Queen Mary in question was not Queen of England, despite how some people refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom. Redirecting to the broadest target removes all arguments over that sort of thing, and all the Queen Marys from British history can be listed. MClay1 (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a name that anyone is ever going to use. The idea that someone will type "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" and expect to find Mary of Teck is completely ridiculous. Nigej (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Anagenic[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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be referring to the Anagen phase (see wikt:anagenic). 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Anagen (or rather to Hair follicle as an {{avoided double redirect}}) and add a hatnote ({{redirect}}) pointing to anagenesis. Searching on Google scholar, it appears that Anagen is the primary topic, however, this adjective can refer to both. – Scyrme (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should both Anagen and Anagenic specifically target the section Hair follicle § Anagen phase (which is where Anagen phase goes)? That section would probably be a better place for the hatnote I suggested rather than at the top of the article. – Scyrme (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate create a 2DAB as a no-primary situation for this adjective -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think there's no primary topic? My results on Google Scholar indicate that Anagen is the primary topic. Are you getting different results? – Scyrme (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Thryduulf 's response below -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. My search results are an almost 50:50 split down to the middle of page 2 when a company and a band start getting a few results, but of the two topics we have articles for the split remains pretty much even at least until the end of page 4. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that on normal search results? If so, shouldn't we favour usage in more reliable academic sources particularly given that these are both scientific topics? – Scyrme (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is on normal search results. Given that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia aimed at lay people rather than subject experts, it is reasonable to presume that those without specific (relevant) scientific knowledge will form the most sizeable proportion of searchers. People searching for a topic on Google Scholar aren't looking for the same results as people searching the same topic on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? No disambiguation has been drafted yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Casting the net a bit wider, but still aiming to look at usage in reliable sources, I tried searching on Google books, and it does seem that "anagenic" is roughly about as likely to be used alongside "anagen phase" as it as "anagenesis". I now agree that there isn't a conclusive primary topic. – Scyrme (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Al-Ġazawāt[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. Jay 💬 08:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that Al-Ġazawāt is a romanization of �االغزوات, which roughly translates to "invasions" ([1]) This history Fandom page seems to support that, but it cites off-web sources so I can't verify the claim (and its reliability is highly dubious, in any case, per WP:FANDOM) This paper also makes reference to the phrase, in connection to "to the stories of the memorable battles led by the prophet [translated]", as does this book, in connection to "conquering and marauding campaigns". I hope this makes the existence of the redirect somewhat clearer. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: See also [2] for further clarification. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Strict rules[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. Jay 💬 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an exclusively golf-related phrase, deletion seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Based on an off-wiki conversation I was just having, Covid lockdown regulations were my first thought. Google search results are a complete mixed bag, featuring YouTube videos about strict rules for royal children, cast members on various TV and movies, public drunkenness in San Marino, food additives in Sweden, what not to put in a dishwasher, a random woman's family trip to Disneyland, Starbucks employees and gambling adverts in Australia - and that's before we even get to page 3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a partial match for Strict rules, hard efforts and Strict rules of evidence. Could disambiguation be a viable option? While this could refer to many things, Wikipedia only needs to aid navigation to content that already exists rather than content that could hypothetically exist but doesn't. A comparable example would be Strict (disambiguation), which links to particular mathematics-related topics. There's also Stricture and Restriction, which cover a range of topics including some more common senses. To be clear, the question isn't rhetoical; I've not really decided yet. – Scyrme (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Since I was only able to find partial matches, I don't think disambiguation is viable (per WP:PARTIAL). – Scyrme (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a golf-related phrase at all, any more than any other sport or activity. Seems to me more a dictionary term than anything we need a redirect for. Nigej (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this redirect is unnecessary and the link form Golf could easily be replaced with a direct link. I actually tried to get it nominated on AFD because I did not know RFD existed, and ips can't nominate on AFD. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Delete 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the word "strict" does not appear in the target page at all. Perhaps this could target pedant, but probably best to just let the search engine work. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedant doesn't mention the word "strict" either, and "strict rules" doesn't necessarily imply pedantry. – Scyrme (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As fine a bit of pedantry as ever there was. Just delete, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to be pedantic; I only meant that readers searching might be looking for something else. (So I was agreeing with you that the search engine would be more helpful.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "strictly" only appears once in the article anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strictly ambiguous to the negative infinity. (Somewhat of a golf pun ... did I make a hole in one?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

U-Stor-It[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29#U-Stor-It

Stuck in a Rut[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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary phrase that is used more commonly as the idiom instead of the song, I propose to delete Aaron Liu (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idiom, stuck in a rut, which is covered at Rut (roads), would not have a capitalised r. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Maynilad[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 Maynilad Water Services. Jay 💬 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Maynilad Water Services. Maynilad more commonly refers to the water concessionaire in most contexts now, and very rare for anyone to think of Maynilad as the old spelling of "Maynila" (the Tagalog name of Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per rationale mentioned above. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

House of Bourbon–Anjou[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 House of Bourbon#Bourbon branches. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. DrKay (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DrKay: Actually, it was the very topic of the target article until April 2022 [3] when it was split without discussion. And the split was executed so badly that neither article mentioned the other. May I suggest that this discussion be continued at Talk:Spanish royal family and addresses whether to split the article or not? No such user (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further participation. Post the last comment, No such user merged back content on the House of Bourbon–Anjou, and the nom removed it as unsourced and unverified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_22&oldid=1147952812"