Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2023.

Mos:BOLDAVOID and others[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 23:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bundle of 4 cross namespace redirects. For all 4 of these, the unideal (controversially "incorrect") prefix is used. The correct pseudo-namespace is "MOS:", for which these redirects all have suitable counterparts in existence.

The idea of "MoS" and "Mos" prefixes has been discussed previously in the past, most recently in 2018 here (and here for the counterpart MoS discussion, earlier discussions linked in header at either), usually under the caveat of "Keep but new ones should be discouraged". A couple key features of these 4 redirects is that they all cropped up in 2020 or 2022. Additionally, these are unlikely even AMONG the lowercase, as the capitalization shifts halfway through. If the "Mos" are utilized for "ease of typing lowercase", to me it feels unfeasible to switch casing for the rest of the title, which are rather long and niche and probably why they only came into existence these last couple years.

Additionally, these have no incoming links, and for the most part are otherwise neglected. These four have only been linked a combined total of once via an RfC message, which has since been undone. While the matter of pseudo-namespaces has often been a controversial subject, and this is not the first time this has been aired here, I don't think I'll be the last to talk about it either, as long as it remains the gray area that it is. For the four I'm bringing here, the combined use is not as helpful as the future cost they will have editor-timewise, especially when (I feel) these are the implausible among the already implausible. I'm not suggesting we delete the really-old PNRs that would have a high orphanage cost, but these are all new enough and unnatural enough that I don't think they'll need to exist by the time the next discussion occurs. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There's an established consensus for a "MOS:" pseudonamespace for these redirects, but we do not need hundreds of capitalization-variant versions of them created. The few that do exist should be nuked to discourage the creation of more of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sticking with the capitalized MOS prefix is better in such cases. Gawaon (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Kuzushiji[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18#Kuzushiji

WikiProject Integrity[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 23:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contents related to this WikiProject were removed from the target page back in February 2023, making this redirect unclear due to a lack of mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (But don't speedy this as G7 - I'm not really the creator, I only recreated it after it got erroneously deleted). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

SMOS:A&Q and others[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 23:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-pseudo-namespace redirects that are not listed at WP:PNR. All were created by one person and seemingly without consensus. Perhaps an alternative can be used, but in the meantime with only a very limited number of associated titles, pseudo-namespaces beyond the usuals only add to the growing complexity, and shouldn't exist without consensus and documentation. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was established, after a lot of consensus discussion and not inconsiderable opposition, because the very large number of sectional and anchor redirects of the MoS were soaking up too many of the mnemonic/sensible "WP:FOO" shortcut strings. A single SMoS page with a few sectional shortcuts to it does not present any such problem, has no need of its own pseudo-namespace, and there is no consensus to introduce a new one at all. I would suggest instead using "MOS:S/FOO" patterns for these, or something like that, if we think they need to even have shortcuts. I'm kind of hard pressed to think of a reason for them, since SMoS is not a guideline or other "controlling" document, but just an introductory summary of the key points of the style guidelines for noobs. If you need to cite part of MoS by shortcut, then cite the actual MoS section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per SMcCandlish. For anybody's future reference, get consensus before creating a new pseudonamespace, and be prepared to explain clearly why it would be beneficial and not redundant to an existing pseudonamespace or namespace shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Ligma Balls[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 Ligma joke. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this could either be redirected to Ninja, moved to the disambiguation page, Ligma (which Rahul Ligma is already an entry of), or just outright removed.

The use of the punchline "Ligma Balls" predates the events surrounding 'Rahul Ligma' and had originated in 2018 as a fictional disease, called "Ligma", which "killed" Fortnite streamer Ninja. This can be seen through a few sources (although, besides The Verge and Polygon, are marked as without consensus on WP:RSP). B3251 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The specific term is not covered in reliable sources or mentioned at any articles. The Ninja fictional disease is just "Ligma", not "Ligma Balls". Insignificant neologisms should not be mentioned at disambiguation pages. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. B3251 is right about the joke pre-dating Rahul Ligma but at the moment the Rahul Ligma page has the only explanation of it. Currently no other redirect makes more sense. Maybe the best presentation would be to have a Ligma joke page and have Rahul Ligma be a section of that? That would satisfy FormalDude's concerns about WP:SUSTAINED since 2018-2022 is even longer than the Twitter and FTX coverage. Also, edits like this: [[1]] are not helpful to having a discussion about content. I'd encourage editors to look at what the text was before FormalDude deleted huge swaths of it just a few minutes ago. BBQboffin (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the only sentence that mentioned "Ligma Balls" at Rahul Ligma because it was sourced to a dictionary entry and is therefore WP:SYNTH. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Retarget to Ligma joke. I created that page just now to circumvent the WP:SYNTH issues, although is quoting from a dictionary to explain to the reader what a word means doesn't seem like a policy violation to me. As for dictionary.com I couldn't find any discussion on the RS noticeboards saying this was unreliable. BBQboffin (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Casca Panzoro[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 23:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a complete lack of notability, even on Wookieepedia itself. That's how you know its really bad. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. and this character does have a page on wookieepedia. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of "Casca" and no mention of "Panzoro", per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Reeve Panzoro[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 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a complete lack of notability, even on Wookieepedia itself. That's how you know its really bad. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. and this character does have a page on wookieepedia. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of "Reeve" and no mention of "Panzoro" per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Barada (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 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I have already nominated so many foot soldiers on Jabba's sail barge for deletion. I can't believe I found yet another. Delete due to utter lack of any encyclopedic value. TNstingray (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. and this character does have a page on wookieepedia. I'm actually more on the fence about the (star wars) disambiguator tagged on it, but it still doesn't have any real reason for deletion. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of a character named Barada at the target page, per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Jaxxon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 20#Jaxxon

Romba (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 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another deletion request due to utter lack of real-world notability. So many of these need to stay over at Wookieepedia. TNstingray (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mentions of any character named Romba at the target article; redirect is misleading and unneeded. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Korr Sella[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 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a noteworthy character at all, just a background non-speaking cameo with a slightly expanded role in the novelization and one other book. Will never be listed on this page. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. and this character does have a page on wookieepedia. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of "Korr" or "Sella" per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gavyn Sykes[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 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable for any reason. Will never be listed on this character page. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, redirects don't have notability standards. wp:cheap. without notability no other information is being obscured. In this case the link is the information. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no mention of "Gavin" or "Sykes" per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Darker Dreams' argument is bizarre - redirects don't have standalone notability standards but they do inherit whatever standards there targets are applying. If the character doesn't meet the standards of the list, then it doesn't deserve a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

UMSC[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 💬 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Unionville Milliken SC article doesn't seem like the primary topic for this abbreviation, so I've created a disambiguation page UMSC (disambiguation) for this that I think would be better. BaduFerreira (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move dab over redirect per nom. Based on my searches, if anything is primary it's the Malaysian hospital (only one hit on the first page of Google was unrelated) but from page 2 onwards its a complete mix so I'm not convinced anything is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move into DAB. When I created the re-direct, I didn't know about the other page, since a redirect didn't exist for it, or else I would've just made it a generic DAB page. RedPatch (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move UMSC (disambiguation) to UMSC per above. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

UGA vs TCU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 26#UGA vs TCU

Global Mission[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 restore and AfD. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be a stand-alone article and converted to a redirect in Sept 2022, without any discussion that I can see. Problem is the target article makes no mention of this term or function that I can see. A further problem is that Global Mission is linked from Template:Billy Graham, although that has no connection with the Seventh Day Adventist mission. A poor quality disambiguation page had been created, but that was reverted. older ≠ wiser 13:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and AfD: I don't really know if Global Mission is notable on its own, but it seems like the best plan of action here would just be to restore and AfD as the redirect as it exists currently doesn't make sense, but it does have some potentially useful history. TartarTorte 14:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Global Mission was a Seventh-day Adventist article that should have never been created, it is not notable and never will be. And those other Global Missions by other denominations, I doubt that they are notable. Catfurball (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD Checking the original article, it looks like advertising to me. The redirect was never discussed, but to my opinion not incorrect. The later created dab page pointed to only one organisation (with a slightly different name) and for the rest to places, not organisations. Article, redirect and dab-page are all not in the best interest of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. If an undiscussed BLAR is disputed and the article was not speedy deletable (as in this case) then the redirection should be reverted and the article discussed as an article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

💁‍♀️[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 20#💁‍♀️

Leetspeak 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 Speedy delete all (WP:G6). All deleted by Cabayi with the rationale "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Mass deletion of redirects added by Alpha200807, several already snow-delete requests at RfD" (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leetspeak redirects are unlikely/not helpful search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per given reasoning Yoblyblob (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yoblyblob: Just so that you're aware, I've added 3 more to this nomination since you voted. I wanted to make you aware of this in case it affected your vote and for complete transparency. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning still works, my vote stays the same. Thanks for letting me know though Yoblyblob (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Not useful or likely. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete all, however where's the harm in keeping? JayCubby (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PANDORA mostly. People don't spell regular company names with numbers and symbols under normal circumstances which makes these not helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. "Y@h00" gets a tiny amount of use but none of the others I looked at do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible and useless redirects. Although there's really not a lot of harm in keeping them, JayCubby, this type of redirect needlessly clutters NPP and should be disincentivized. I believe that's the use in deleting them. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. We're what, 10,000 pages backlogged? JayCubby (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and to avoid a Pandora's box of redirects from leet spellings. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Implausible. #prodraxis connect 12:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some but keep Y@h00! since it actually seems to be used. --(Roundish ✡t) 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Rosbif73. SWinxy (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Just some of many countless unlikely, contrived redirects Alpha200807 (talk · contribs) had already received plenty of complaints and warnings about and has since been banned for along with other disruptive editing. Ubcule (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 19#Gwynfryn and Cefndeuddwr baronet

Sly 5: Master Of Thieves[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 💬 06:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fan name for a fifth installment of the Sly Cooper series, which hasn't materialized for years (nor are there hints in the real world one is coming anytime soon). There used to be a stub article at this title until it was redirected to the franchise's main article less than four hours after it was created in June 2014, but it isn't mentioned there or anywhere else on Wikipedia (which it shouldn't be until there's official word from Sony, Sucker Punch, etc. on whether it's taking place), and it hasn't been for several years since a Waterloo, London IP removed the pertinent section two months later. Regards, SONIC678 05:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguably the information in the nom is enough for a stub (if it's citable and notable) or paragraph in the target article (if it's citable) without tripping over wp:crystal. But a redirect doesn't have to meet any of those standards: the redirect is not concealing other information and it is a reasonable search term based on the information in the nom. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target article, no talks of fifth game. Not likely search term, and misleading as there doesn't contain any content on Wikipedia about this title. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jump and press the circle button[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18#Jump and press the circle button

Nacht van de Lange Messen[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 💬 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch-language translation of term. Article has no relevance to the Netherlands or Belgium. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, redirects are cheap, and the Netherlands is mentioned in the article. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, yes, but the Dutch name itself has zero relevance to the article as this event didn't take place in any Dutch-speaking area. It's like having a redirect from the Arabic name for 9/11 or the Russian name for the 1938 Yellow River flood because Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union are mentioned in those articles. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:RLANG: the term is not mentioned in the article and simply mentioning the Netherlands is not enough to warrant a redirect. However, I am not completely opposed to keeping per WP:CHEAP. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely to be a search term for the English wiki, a passing mention does not warrant a redirect Yoblyblob (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yoblyblob at WP:RFOREIGN. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wrong Road, The (disambiguation)[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. Three keep !votes. Per WP:RKEEP #5, if someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. Appears to otherwise be a harmless way of searching for disambig pages. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 14:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Apparently these were created for sorting reasons, but it is not clear when you would ever need to sort a disambiguation page (except perhaps in categories, but there you can add a sortkey to the category). There are a lot of these, this RfD is just for the one, the others can then be done in a next RfD if this one ends in delete. Oh, and in any case these surely aren't "printworthy" redirects?

By the way, Wrong Road (disambiguation), The also exists, for the same reason... Fram (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems utterly harmless and is potentially useful in places. There seems no obvious reason to exclude disambiguations when sorting lists of Wikipedia articles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • An example of where it would be useful? Fram (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Anywhere someone wants a list of articles, e.g. for an index. Not every redirect has be in use on en.wp to be useful, and this seems like the sort of thing that would be beneficial to reusers. We should not delete redirects that are harmless and potentially useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • We really shouldn't be creating weird redirects just because some hypothetical editor somewhere might in some weird scenario use this (and not just "Wrong Road, the") as a sorting help. Even to create an index it is really not necessary in any way. The current situation seems, even in that scenario, more harmful than helpful, as we now have two different redirects in e.g. Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title, The for the same target article, which doesn't really help those hypothetical automated index-creating processes for off-line lists of disambiguation pages. Fram (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Why wouldn't you want to sort disambiguation pages by sortname? Every article in Wikipedia that has a possible sort name should have an incoming redirect from that sort name because that is how encyclopedia entry titles have been sorted for centuries. There are numerous titles that could traditionally be listed "Wrong Road, The", but we can't title the redirect with that formulation because "The Wrong Road" itself is a primary topic. BD2412 T 15:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguations are not "encyclopedia entry titles", they are lists of such titles. We don't even have (at the moment I post this) the redirect Wrong Road, The, just like we don't have such sorting redirects for probably 99% of such titles (they only exist for personal names in general). Where would you want to sort these pages, and would then need this redirect? In tables, you just add a sortkey. In categories, same. In Search, we have Wrong Road which brings you straight to the disambig. Can you show me a page where this redirect would actually, in reality, be used (and which of the two would you use then anyway?). Not some "but paper encyclopedias" handwaving (which in the index would never have such a convoluted entry anyway), but an actual use case. Fram (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still trying to understand how you envision this in reality. The idea is apparently that people will create a printed selection of articles, including disambiguation pages, and will have an index of these pages, again including the disambiguation pages. So for Admirable Crichton, The (disambiguation) and Admirable Crichton (disambiguation), The, you would get in the index not only 5 entries for the articles which start with "The Admirable Crichton", but right next to it one or two index entries for the disambiguation, which would again point you to the disambiguation which would be located right beside these 5 entries anyway, and would again point you to the same ones. And this is somehow useful, wanted, something paper encyclopedias did? As far as I know (and how I would hope any self-respecting indexer would work), you would get one entry in the index, "Admirable Crichton", which would say "see "The Admirable Crichton", and at that entry all uses would be explained. The convoluted scheme these redirects seem to be intended for lacks all logic and is very user-unfriendly. Fram (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are user-friendly to those who use them. I started the whole sortname redirect project because our 218,000+ disambiguation pages are by far too large of a set to conveniently parse by title characteristics. I can't envision a circumstance under which the kind of reader who would be confounded by these redirects would even know they exist. BD2412 T 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where have they ever been used? No idea how creating multiple convoluted redirects per page makes the original set any easier to parse, but perhaps an actual example would help. Fram (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have a use case for this particular set at my fingertips, but when I began the entire sortname redirect project, it was with an eye towards building up name lists and connecting similar anthroponymies, and I have used the sortname categories to great effect in building those. BD2412 T 21:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • This AfD isn't meant for the "Smith, John" type of redirects. It's for the ones with "the" (or "a", "an", ...) and "disambiguation". Well, technically it's only for the one nominated, but I would then nominate the other similar ones as well. But, and perhaps this wasn't clear, not the "lastname, firstname" ones, I didn't mean to include those. So, thanks for the reply, do you have any actual use cases for the type I want to discuss? Fram (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • The use case would be the same, for anyone who wants a quick list of disambiguation links for articles starting with "The", without having to parse this out of the hundreds of thousands of total disambiguation links. BD2412 T 01:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that is a terrible use case to create redirects or categories. We can create with the same rationalization redirects and categories to help anyone who "wants a quick list" of disambiguations with the word "road" in it, or the same but for those which aren't actually about roads, or disambiguation pages where a song and a TV series episode have the same title, or a quick list of all songs with the word "wrong" in the title, or... (and that's just some ideas from this single page, the possibilities are limitless). The redirect and category system are not meant as an endless supply of groupings of all possible eventual questions anyone can think of.

Most damning perhaps is that instead of this always-incomplete, manual double set of redirects, we already have for this single use case a much easier method: this gives you a permanently up-to-date list of all disambiguation pages starting with "the". Fram (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: completely harmless per above commenters. And I wonder how long Fram will take to respond to this !vote – previous responses come three and fifteen minutes after. :) Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Asad Ali Palijo (actor)[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. Complex/Rational 12:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ali Palijo (singer) was recently deleted via AfD. This recreation as a redirect (under a new title) is pure WP:GAMING of the deletion process. A redirect was never brought up in the discussion, and this is simply an attempt by users to circumvent the deletion process. Note that "Asad Ali Palijo (singer)" was also originally created as a redirect, and then later changed to an article.

Given the history of abuse [2], I don't think we should make any concessions for the subject. KH-1 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Druisk[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 💬 06:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why it redirects to Kaunas. #prodraxis connect 03:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep this seems to be an alternative (possibly historical, possibly an exonym) name. The Jewish Encyclopedia 1901 edition at has an entry for "Druisk" that describes it as being a city at the "junction of the Viliya and the Niemen" rivers. The Lithuanian names for those Rivers are Neris and Nemunas and the lead of the target describes Kaunas as being "located at the confluence of the two largest Lithuanian rivers, the Nemunas and the Neris". Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a moderate number of references to this name, which seem to match modern day Kaunas, in archive.org [15] and google books [16]. It'd be nice to add some prose in either the target but I can't find a source that accurately enough describes who/when called it this but also isn't needed and is otherwise a useful redirect. Skynxnex (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Kirbi[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. I will note that a mention was added. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This title seem as if it would refer more closely to Kirby phonetically than to its current target, at which article this particular alternative spelling is not listed. Searching for "Kirbi" on google only returns results that are either in English or Serbian. (Upon translating, the Serbian mentions specifically are in reference to John Kirby). Utopes (talk / cont) 02:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian name for the village is Кирби, which transliterates to English as Kirbi. Google Maps, for example, uses this when viewing it in English. I've added the Russian name to the article. Randi🦋TalkContribs 14:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mention has been added to the target. Jay 💬 04:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Four Golden Princess[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. Editors are divided between deletion and keep due to its history, with one editor suggesting that a prior revision be restored and sent to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 04:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to M-Girls seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different music groups. Adding this as a redirect to a completely different group is misleading. Suggesting to delete and leave as empty page until more updated information can be sourced. RagnaParadise (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reason 10: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Tevildo (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this is not a good redirect. The DRV was started first, so I would wait for it to be closed. The comments there may be leaning to a restore and AfD. Jay 💬 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stick to restore and AfD as also suggested at the DRV, and because this should not be kept as a poor/incorrect redirect, nor deleted because of its history. Four Golden Princess is not known just for its collaboration with M-Girls. Jay 💬 05:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for the DRV to be closed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DRV is now closed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m leaning keep as an {{R with history}} (WP:R#K1), especially as the AfD closure specifically mentioned that the previous article [c]an be restored if better sources are found. As for the target…that’s tricky. Maybe retarget to the dab page at Golden Princess? On the understanding that this redirect wouldn’t exist if it didn’t have history, but - as it does - that might be the least worst target for it. However, my !vote on the target is much weaker than my !vote to keep the redirect. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 09:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to the history, at this rate I'd say. Has mention, seemingly logical target. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Presidents of the United States of America[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. Participants seem roughly split on what to do with these. -- Tavix (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything must be redirected to the associated dab page shown above. RMXY (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget The Presidents of the United States of America to List of presidents of the United States Targeting the DAB page isn't helpful, because the redirect clearly indicates it is specifically for the U.S. president. There is a clear primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Re)target all to List of presidents of the United States. The "America" or "USA" in these naturally disambiguate it from the other "United States" at the dab, and the office holders are the clear primary topic over the band and album. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Primary" is not just about importance of the topic, it's about how likely a person searching for a term is looking for that topic. If anyone was searching for multiple US presidents, why would they expect the addition of "The" to help in finding the relevant page, and why specifically for US presidents, not for anything else? I think if anyone is using "The" here and "List of" everywhere else it is because of the band with that name, and if they know there is a band would they think they are more likely or less likely to find the list by adding "The" to their search? Peter James (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (that is, retain the status quo). "The Presidents of the United States of America" (only, with this exact wording and capitalization) does unambiguously refer to the band, although I appreciate that it may not today be the primary meaning. However, this is a case for it redirecting to the dab page, as it does now. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mostly side with Tevildo, although I'd retarget "Presidents of the United States of America" to President of the United States (disambiguation) too. The band/album combo is a primary topic for this search term over the list, and even then the dab page covers the other uses. The absence of a "The" isn't the greatest syntactical difference. Wouldn't mind if the 3rd one is retargeted too, but it's a greater distance from the band name. J947 † edits 02:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In hopes of avoiding a mini-WP:TRAINWRECK, retarget all to President of the United States (disambiguation) as nom suggests. If no consensus for that, then, add a hatnote linking to dab on List of presidents of the United States and retarget all there. The two principles I'm using here is (1) all three should go to the same place (2) it shouldn't be difficult for readers to find the band if they are using its official name or close to it. —siroχo 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support a hatnote for the latter option. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete The Presidents of the USA or keep it pointing to the list. It's an implausible search term for the music group or for the various presidents in the Americas. And I think there is a big difference between "Presidents of America", and "Presidents of the Americas". I don't think any of these are plausible for the dab page directly. As for the other two, I think they are pretty clearly intended for the band, so retarget to The Presidents of the United States of America (band). I added a hatnote for the dab page, to the band article. - jc37 19:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposed target is named (band) to differentiate it from its album of the same name – therefore readers should be directed to the dab page. J947 † edits 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The band and the album both have parenthetical dabs - presumably to differentiate from each other. The band is presumably the primary topic of the two. - jc37 23:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are differentiated from each other then by that there is no primary topic. J947 † edits 00:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as it turns out, I mis-spoke. I looked at the edit history, and the issue apparently is the word The. If "The" is included, then there is no need for the dab. But if it's not included, then the P of "Presidents" is capitalized, and then is needs disambiguating from the elected person.
    And - apparently per MOS - the "the" shouldn't be invluded, hence the dab.
    So coming back around to it: The redirect in question has the the, for which, the band is the primary topic. - jc37 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to the list of presidents and add a hatnote to the dab page. Given the use of the plural it seems pretty clear to me that most people are going to be wanting a page containing information about multiple presidents of the unambiguously specified country - i.e. a list of them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Presidents of the United States of America; retarget The Presidents of the USA to the disambiguation page; I'm not sure about Presidents of the United States of America. It's likely that anyone using "The" is looking for the band, not the list; no redirects for "The states of" exist for any country, or anything similar with "regions", "counties" or "provinces", which I think would be more likely to use "the" than presidents. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 10 October 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! 01:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Climber (climbing)[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 04:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously listed on the Climber disambiguation page as "Climber, a participant in the activity of climbing", with only the action of climbing being wikilinked.

This redirect was created to replace the word "Climber" in the aforementioned description with "Climber (climbing)", with both the participant and the activity being wikilinked. I do not think the double-target with this particular disambiguator is needed. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: really seems absurd. Just morphological variants of the same word: there would be no problem in WLinking 'climber' to Climbing if necessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or fix so it doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page). As per runner redirecting to running, the word climber should redirect to climbing, and not go to at a climber disambiguation page (may IP editors to climbing articles leave the disambiguation link in place which has to be fixed). Either redirect climber to climbing (and list its entry on the disambiguation page, per runner), or leave as is (which is better than redirecting climber to a disambiguation page). 10:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of the redirect? Is it for people who come to WP and type in "Climber (climbing)"? What sort of people would they be? Or is it so there can be WLs like "Fred was a [[Climber (climbing)|climber]] who enjoyed baseball", rather than just WLinking "climber" to "climbing"? Imaginatorium (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the latter, and the fact that a lot of IPs (who do most of the climbing editing these days), just put in climber and leave the disambiguation in place. In addition, the redirect is used to link the WikiCommons category:climber to the Wikipedia climbing article, and to the Wikidata entry for climber. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how this redirect is "for the IPs", to be honest. I get that you were the one who created the page and naturally you made it because you found a "gap" to be filled, which in my opinion was a gap that already had a working solution and didn't really exist. You ask about how "Runner" redirects to "Running", but what about climber? From my point of view, it's purely a matter of WP:PTOPIC. When in comes to the two verbs, Running receives 5x the pageviews as climbing does, and none of the other disambiguations come close. Climbing, on the otherhand, and particularly "climber", has competition, as the article for "Vine" (referred to as a "climber") receives 3x more pageviews as climbing does. To that end, because to my knowledge there is no primary topic for "Climber" necessarily, I think the disambiguation page is appropriate to exist there.
As for what I don't buy about the explanation, is that this article was not linked anywhere before you created it. In my opinion, nobody would ever think to use this particular disambiguator unless that person had insider knowledge that it existed. Because there is no article called Climber which talks about climbing, the natural solution is to just link to Climbing instead rather than typing in the redundant "action doer (present participle version of verb)". The solution that every other verb-article uses is just "[[X-ing|X-er]]", or "[[Climbing|Climber]]" to get the job done. This redirect has a very strange disambiguator that nobody would think to use as it's more complicated than the status quo.
Checking the Climber (climbing) what-links-to page, and there may be information that I don't have the full picture on, but it doesn't seem like this redirect was created to deal with IP editors linking to DAB pages. In fact, it seems like the opposite happened. This page was created in June, and the handful of pages (~5) that link to it, all were edited in AFTER the page's creation, in July or so. I don't know what was happening to any IPs that changed linked to here before June, and what occurred to the previous links to the main Climber disambiguation page. Instead, for the couple of IPs that made these changes across the pages by changing Mountaineer to Climber in the lead, it seems to me like the solution for all of these would be to change the redirect target to target the main article itself. This redirect's creation seemed to just add a middle step for the sake of having a redirect called "climber", when there didn't need to be. Any further use besides this, I'm unsure. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also it seems as if you imported from Wikidata to the redirect after the RfD was up. On this topic, and based on what I've said above, I don't think I agree that the Wikidata or Commons should be attached to this particular title, as it is quite unintuitive for any interested person to find this item if they didn't know which redirect this Wikidata entry was associated with. Unless they looked for the Wikidata entry first, and upon accessing that page, they'd find a redirect containing no further context towards its entry besides "this is a redirect to climbing".) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikidata entry for "climber" has existed since 24 Feb 2020, and I added the link from Wikidata to climber (climbing) on 11 June 2023. The WikiCommons category for "climbers" has existed since 21 April 2008. By having climber (climbing) all three are linked. Not an expert in these matters, but is not this not a good thing? Given that redirects are relatively inoffensive, why would we break this link? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for what I don't buy about the explanation, is that this article was not linked anywhere before you created it. As the entering of "climber" threw up a disambiguation error, someone would have to come along an fix it. Obviously, if climber automatically redirected to climbing (as per runner), this would not be a problem, but for some reason that was not considered acceptable? Regardless, even if that was fixed (and it probably should be) I think having climber (climbing), allows the Wikidata-Wikicommons-WikiPedia articles to link which is useful (per my comment just above). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I completely agree with your sentiment here. I think as a whole, the linking of Wikidata and Commons for a topic of a "Climber", if it exists as an article, is likely for the betterment of Wikipedia and adds information, depending on the circumstance. Additionally, linking to climber in pages about the activity is not great, because links to disambiguation pages should be avoided where possible in order for an accurate wikilink. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, in its execution, I don't know really understand how this redirect "for the sake of wikilinking what type of 'climber' it is" is more helpful than simply wikilinking to the base page of Climbing. Disambiguators should be about distinguishing a particular title from the rest, whereas this doesn't really do that at all, I think. For vines called "climbers", it can potentially be said that they are also "climbing".
While I'm not advocating for these necessarily, Climber (mountaineer) or maybe even Climber (person) would at least add a second layer of description to identify what is being talked about in that title. Climber (climbing) says the same thing twice. This referral to the activity is clear via the Category:Climbers that exists and is already attached to the Wikidata & Commons, but it isn't particularly clear via the current title of the redirect, I think. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Obviously, I am a relatively new editor (did some IP editing myself in my time) so I am open-minded about what is the best way forward. Now that I have explained my reasons for creating it, hopefully that will help the discussion to the right resolution. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect itself feels awkward, but I'm not entirely sure it's implausible to someone familiar with WP naming conventions. I would probably lean towards deletion, but I haven't thought too much on it. Starting an RM on Climber -> Climber (disambiguation), with the base name redirecting to Climbing, may not be a bad idea; a glance at massviews seems to indicate the only non-PTM target with a large number of views would be Vine as an alternate name, which might be in common enough use to warrant disambiguation; I don't really know. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this might also be helpful, as I think the main use of climber is for climbing. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the redirect is not deleted, I'd propose the alternate solution of moving to Climber (mountaineer) without leaving a redirect, and if it is deleted and the wikidata link is still desired, you can just create that redlink again anyways. There may be other options – I do agree that (climbing) is bad disambiguation, though. (I'd say this is a rare case where moving a redirect makes sense, as it's more a page title dispute, and having history of which titles have been used in the past is useful.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep policy is that redirects that aren't hurting anything don't need to be "cleaned up" or disposed of because they're "weird" or "don't have an obvious use." It's not in the way of anything. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be curious to hear more about this apparent policy in regards to RfD, because WP:R is a guideline and WP:RCHEAP is an essay, and neither are binding to my awareness. Your argument that "redirects without an obvious use should be left alone" justifies the existence of Climber (person who climbs) as well as any redirect created solely by one person, where that redirect's intended use-case is only known within the confines of someone's mind, excusing the hyperbole. While I'm not saying that THIS redirect is an example of the above, it should be said that in general, Wikipedia is not a playground for all sorts of one-time use redirects, and RfD is the place to figure out whether redirects of questionable use are worth keeping or deleting. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, "editing guideline" not "policy." It is a distinction that matters. However, editing guidelines at WP:R are still more valid than the parts of the essay WP:COSTLY, which I'm seeing get quoted a lot as if it is guideline or policy. So, yes, I'm going with WP:R#CRD, WP:R#HARMFUL, WP:R#DELETE, WP:R#KEEP. I'm also not saying that we should go willy-nilly creating random redirects. I didn't pull the "don't have an obvious use" from anywhere but other people using it as an argument. Honestly, just because it doesn't make sense to you (or, honestly, me) doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or have use. In just a few days I've seen several RFD's that "didn't make sense" until someone with the right background knowledge happened along; then suddenly it's obvious. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I consider myself pretty lenient at RFD, keep anything vaguely plausible, but... this isn't useful. Seems created solely to format the disambiguation link a particular way, but there's no need for that, and actual harm - the article is at "Climbing" so just link to, well, Climbing. Seems like a Pandora's Box situation of creating a precedent for strange self-disambiguators if allowed (Builder (building) redirecting to Construction worker?) SnowFire (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't actually disambiguate anything - if "climbing" had some other meaning then people doing it would be called climbers too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks unusual but it's a perfectly valid search term and takes people to the most directly relevant content we have. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SnowFire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move There should be a disambiguated "climber" redirect, and although "climbing" is possibly ambiguous there is a primary topic, making it suitable for disambiguation. There is also Climber (cycling), but with "climber (" in the search box both options appear. The topic that prevents this from becoming a primary redirect is climbing plant, for which climber (plant) would be useful, but which is not a likely topic for "climbing". "Builder (building)" is not the same, as it is ambiguous within the context of its disambiguation (building) and could refer to a construction worker, general contractor or real estate developer. Peter James (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or move My main concern is also climbing plant (which should have its own article & not redirect to vine). Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_11&oldid=1194631144"