Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2014.

Saddle (landform)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A saddle has a broader meaning than a col and should be expanded into an article; the redirect causes interwiki problems for languages that do not have a word for col. Yecril (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Χλωρος[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first, Keep the second. "Chloros of carbide" crops up a lot in early materials science texts (by early send of 17th century) and afterwards. I can source this but it is not my job at RfD to do so. It's my job at improving the article, for sure. But keep cos I can. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chlorine is not a topic that is especially Greek. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Further "chloros" is "green" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first; only keep the second if it's synonymous, which it doesn't appear to be. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
t
Comment It was the greenness of it I was wondering about. Of course Chloroform is (ain't it?) and Chlorophyll and so on: but Chlorine isn't 'particularly green: in fact I think it only is when it makes a compound of oxide: but others should probably know better. The form of mustard gas in the first world war for example? It is not especially green (or Greek!). An English speaker would not immediately associate chloro- with green in the way, say, they might do with verdigris? Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

About:wikipedia[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. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XNR to Wikipedia internal documentation, when we have an article about Wikipedia called Wikipedia. 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless; Since Internet Explorer and someother browsers have the about URI scheme it seems a reasonably likely search term. Incorrect, yes, but likely. Stats show it gets about one or two hits a day: which usually I and others might regard as "below noise level" but since this is schemed like that, and probably only gnomers and techhies do it and just slip, I see no harm in it: I could see myself doing it. Were it target to article space, I should think differently. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way 65.94 glad to have you back. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, thx? It was only a day or two. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, but you see what mayhem has ensued in your absence? Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

HEAT[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. There wasn't enough substantial discussion, especially evidence offered, as to whether the status quo of the warhead as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was appropriate or not. With over 150 incoming links for the warhead, it at least meets one of the specified criteria. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heat (disambiguation). Just what I think. Just leave the above sample unedited, I don't want to get edit tagged. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "edit tagged" means, but there's no reason to obfuscate links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Comment. I have actually worked designing and testing high-explosive anti-tank warheads, but the were not called this. All defence/defense industries (indeed any industry, but it seems endemic in defense/defence) are replete with these acronyms. I agree with your about the obfuscation, but what are you suggesting we do with it? Delete it? Redirect it to heat (disambiguation)? Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: When I said obfuscation, I was referring to the fact that he deliberately misfiled this request (which I have since fixed). I wasn't referring to the redirect itself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Keep per Jack. There is a naughty child who has found a new toy in the toybox. Si Trew (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Edit tagged" means an edit filter will catch me, and I do not want that.The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note that I suspect the reason for this listing is to make it easier for readers going to HEAT to find their way to Miami Heat, given this user's other listings here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this is not the only use of the form HEAT and there is no indication that it is the primary source: redirect to Heat (disambiguation). PamD 18:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Retarget to Heat (disambiguation) per PamD. Out of all of the recent nominations by this nominator today, this one makes sense, given that HEAT (software) exists on Heat (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still thinking about this personally, but there are many incoming links that will need to be fixed if this is retargeted, which seems likely. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A user typing all-caps HEAT into the search box is most likely looking for the high explosive anti-tank article. A link to the disambig page at that article is sufficient. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please stop saying Support and Opposed, since it's unclear what you actually want to do. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to disambiguation There isn't a clear primary use of HEAT, and if anything the primary use is heat. I find it implausible that the anti-tank weapon is the most common thing with that abbreviation, and especially that it's more common than people typing common words in all caps. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to "High-explosive anti-tank warhead": slightly more popular than the second most common usage of the acronym. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more popular is an argument for disambiguation, since slightly more popular does not make a primary topic - that would require way more popular. Not to mention that you need to count everyone looking for heat. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to Heat (disambiguation), too many meanings of the all-caps version for there to be a primary topic. bd2412 T 03:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Luk skyawlker[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. I searched in vain for a snappy Vader quote to use here, but suffice to say multiple typos make this an implausible search term. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely unlikely misspelling, brought to you by the same user who created Set hMickfarland. Delete. - Eureka Lott 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely Luk skalker was the companion of made mariette? I have all the stickers. Si Trew (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tagged is {{R from misspelling}} which will keep it out of search results and other areas it doesn't belong. This spelling is actually quite likely (imagine some guy typing quickly misss (see what I did there?) the "e") and there really is no good reason to delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the missing e was the only error, I'd agree with you, but there are two other errors: the s isn't capitalized, and the w and a are reversed. It all adds up to one big mess. - Eureka Lott 22:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feed to the Sarlacc (Delete) There's just too many misspellings to justify the redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while I would claim "Luk" to be very likely misspelling (trust me, native English speakers, much more likely then you would ever think), the "skyawlker" part makes me think this redirect will never be usefully triggered. P.S.: apparently, it is linked off-site, as appears from looking at stats, though this time I would prefer forcing the traffic source to fix its link, not keeping this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University

Lyon Smith[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He voiced in this animated tv show doesn't mean he should be redirected to that article. UBStalk 11:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although I don't agree with the nominator's rationale (if this was the voice actor's only notable work, this redirect would be useful), I agree with deletion for a different reason: per WP:REDLINK. I did a quick search for this person using a search engine, and it seems as though this voice actor has done a substantial amount of acting in a list of rather notable animated shows/movies. There is a possibility that an article could be created for this person, and deleting this redirect could promote its creation. Steel1943 (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. In my usual cryptic crossword way (which occasionally gets us to consensus with what seems initially bizarre but then turns out to help another find a better link) I was trying to think of alternatives such as Lyon's Myth or Leo N. Smith or Lions myth and things like that: but this seems the obvious thing to do: the others would be absurd. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Demographics of San Francisco[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. No WP:RFD#DELETE reason to delete. Clearly a potentially useful redirect that targets to a relevant section. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people will search with this title. They will go to main article first. This redirect in unnecessary maybe. UBStalk 11:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect is clearly useful. Currently, the redirect targets a section in the article, San Francisco#Race and ethnicity, which seems to be the best target to direct a reader if they are trying to locate demographic information for the city of San Francisco. No one benefits from this redirect's deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Is not marked {{R to section}} but that is easily fixed if we get consensus to keep. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

O21[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#O21

Doors[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 Door. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatic that any copyeditor bluelinking to doors wishes to link to The Doors, should instead link to door (disambiguation) so dabbot will automatically alert editor that they have linked to an ambiguous redirect. In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to door as a {{R from plural}}, or less preferably per the nominator. I would think it should either be ambiguous between various doors, or the thing you use to block a portal (a door) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that outcome also In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Retarget Me too. Stats are not too helpful here since we don't really know what people are looking for, we only know what they end up with: for all we know they might want timber merchant. I'd be inclined to keep (I am neither a huge fan of the band, nor against them, but it seems a likely target) but who knows? We don't.
It would be nice somehow if we could track how quickly people click away from the article when they accidentally hit the wrong target. Until that happy day arrives then we have to second-guess, and I am with the above. Si Trew editing as IP 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A look at the incoming links shows that the vast majority of people who link to "Doors" are intending to link to the band. We're setting ourselves up for a lot of misplaced links if we redirect "Doors" to "door". No need to fix something that ain't broke. Dohn joe (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Door. The plural use of the noun seems to be the most plausible link. Any currently existing links to The Doors via this redirect exist now due to the fact that it leads there now; if it did not, the links should be redirected. An amount of "incoming links" doesn't prove a primary topic; it just proves that editors let those redirect links be since it guided them to the correct topic, and asserts no level of notability over other subjects that could be referred to by the same title. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what it shows is that it is WP:NATURAL for editors to use Doors as a link to the band. And I would agree that it might "seem" in the abstract, that the plural is a more plausible link - but the actual evidence we have - what Doors actually links to - shows that the band is actually the more plausible link. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense, but I don't necessarily agree with it ... in all cases, and this is one of those cases. Some instances, such as the ones stated somewhere else on this page, such as Windows, make sense, given the extreme notability of the subject. Also, call me crazy, but due to my personal interests, I did not find out about the existence of the band until about two years ago, whereas I have known about the existence of "Windows" since the version that was released in the early 90's that is a subject that still holds high notability today. (I am aware that I am speaking about my personal belief of the notability of subjects, and not about the world's assessment as a whole, but I think that if I think this way, there are most likely others who think the same.) Lastly, after I looked into the band after finding out about them, I'm honestly not sure if their notability is worldwide, which is the premise of determining a primary topic, given that they were an American band. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Any search for the band in any other language will show their notability. They were one of the most popular and influential rock bands in the late 60's, with clear worldwide influence. If nothing else, the fact that The Doors has articles on 115 other language wikis shows their worldwide notability. Would you reconsider your !vote on that basis? Dohn joe (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced, but that doesn't mean that others agree with me. We'll have to see how this discussion plays out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fact doesn't assess how the term "Doors" usually refers to the band "The Doors"; that just proves that 115 versions of Wikipedia have an article about the band. On that note, I would imagine that even more have an article about the "door" structure, given that the majority of societies use them in one way or another. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have put it better. I know A Shropshire Lad off by heart and not because I knew A. E. Houseman but because that poetry blew into my heart an air that kills: and he was working at the GPO when he wrote it. So what is notable to one is maybe not notable to another: the point is we find WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS]: The three pillars. sometimes we fail but we might find two out of three, cross our fingers and hope that another editor finds the last. Doe has not managed to find any; Steel has; I found some the other day not the best but better than nothing, and added them here. As John Maynard Keynes said, or rather is misquoted as saying "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?" Si Trew (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what have I not found - what am I supposed to be looking for here? Dohn joe (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that say that "Doors" are more likely than "The Doors", or the other way around. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we exclude Tubular Bells from this (with that particular capitalization) just to make it simpler? Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Show this redirect the door please. I also wonder why should a band take precedence over one of the most basic human and animal structures. --Lenticel (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we are conflating three separate questions here. We have three separate titles: Door, Doors, and The Doors. Each one requires its own WP:PRIMARYTOPIC assessment. I think we are all in agreement that Door and The Doors are appropriately targeted to the right article. The question is whether a reader typing in Doors is likelier looking for the door or for The Doors, and whether an editor linking to Doors is meaning to link to "door" or "The Doors". On the latter question, I think it's obvious - look at "What links here" for Doors. It's almost exclusively links from band-related articles. (Possibly influenced by WP:THE, which discourages using "The" in WP titles.) That makes this redirect the WP:NATURAL choice. People already use that link, and will continue to do so, whereas we are not having the reverse issue (of people meaning to link to "door" when they link to "doors". (Possibly influenced by WP:SINGULAR, which discourages using plurals as article titles.) WP policy and WP practice both seem to show that it is better to keep this link as is - I understand the conceptual anomaly ("Of course, "doors" means "doors", not some band!"), but won't we be inviting navigation and editing problems that don't exist now? Does this make any sense? Dohn joe (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one (yet) is questioning if the term "The Doors" refers to the band or not as a primary topic; I believe that it does, and should remain with no disambiguation. However, the use of the term "doors" without "the" is more likely to be used in regular context as referring to the structure. The amount of incoming links via other Wikipedia articles doesn't necessarily determine a primary topic; it just proves that other editors have left the redirect in place instead of changing the link to The Doors since "Doors" already redirects there. Yes, if the target of "doors" is changed to "door", there will be the consequence of several bad links, but that is a technical issue that has no bearing on determining a primary topic. If the bad links issue is truly pressing, then a temporary solution would be to retarget "doors" to Door (disambiguation) to allow the DAB solver tool recognize the existence of several links towards a disambiguation page, and allow other editors to correct them accordingly. (Note: I am in no way stating that "Doors" should be permanently retargeted to the disambiguation page as I feel that the primary topic is clearly the structure, but rather I am providing a possible solution to deal with the bad link issue if the "doors" redirect is determined by consensus to be retargeted to "door".) Steel1943 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to door per WP:PLURAL and for greater longstanding encyclopedic importance. Don't worry about the incoming links. I'll take care of those. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to door (disambiguation): apparently The Doors is the primary topic of the plural "doors", so following WP:PLURAL would only inflict damage. Still, some off-site traffic may (and most likely is) comming for some other meanings, so DAB page would probably serve everyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wishes[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 Wish as {{R from plural}}. This represents a clear consensus supported by lack of persuasive evidence that Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams is the primary topic. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatic that any copyeditor bluelinking to wishes wishes to link to Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams, should instead link to wishes (disambiguation) so dabbot will automatically alert editor that they have linked to an ambiguous redirect. In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Likewise as nom would also support that outcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. I was thinking of parallels: fishes, which actually is a word as both noun and verb, redirects to the primary topic fish. bishes (3rd person present tence for slang "bish", to hit, does not exist: in fact bish has a completely different redirect to Bishōnen, a Hong Kong film). dishes goes to the article tableware but "dishes" are mentioned in the first sentence of the lede. niche exists but niches does not: quiche and quiches likewise. tish and tishes. I stop now. Si Trew editing as IP. 188.143.15.1 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the links shows that the vast majority of editors linking to "Wishes" are intending to link to the Disney topic. The current setup works as is - especially since it is fairly common to link from a plural to a topic besides the singular: see Windows, Friends for popular examples, Turnstiles, Bugles for less important exampels that show the principle. Dohn joe (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that proves the point. We have turnstile and bugle. I know how to work both. But unfortunately I have never got a decent note out of a turnstile nor made any money from a bugle. Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you'll have to spell that out a bit for me.... Dohn joe (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't want to patronise you, but you asked me to reply, so I shall: we have {{R to plural}}. Generally, the singular title of an article and the plural go to the same thing. These go to totally different things: and that's a bit peculiar. Even if we decided it should go to some different title as plural, why should it go to this particular title? That's a bit WP:PROMO and so on. And it's a bit misleading: It's like redirecting John Doe to User:Dohn joe, or something like that. Our task, I thought, was to help readers find the information they are looking for. I realise I am in a minority on that, but I shall continue to say so. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, it is proper for a plural to redirect to a singular. However, it is common practice on WP that when a topic uses a plural form, that plural form can establish an independent WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In addition to the ones mentioned above, see peeps, tubular bells, the bends, bookends, parallel lines, dire straits, lifeforms, parachutes, celebrations, snickers, whoppers, planters, ruffles, etc. for a small sample of such cases. It's always a case-by-case thing, but it's perfectly normal for a plural form to point to a different topic than the singular. And Wishes has pointed to the Disney topic since 2009, so it seems to have been working well in this case, too. Can't say that I'd ever heard of the topic before, but my intuition is not the test. Apparently our readers are looking for the Disney topic when they search for the plural "Wishes". Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wish. The plural use of the noun seems to be the most plausible link. Any currently existing links to Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams via this redirect exist now due to the fact that it leads there now; if it did not, the links should be redirected. An amount of "incoming links" doesn't prove a primary topic; it just proves that editors let those redirect links be since it guided them to the correct topic, and asserts no level of notability over other subjects that could be referred to by the same title. Lastly, in my particular case, if I looked up the term "Wishes", I would actually not be sure what I'm looking for, and the current target isn't even in my top five ideas of what I would be looking for; in fact, I did not even know about the existence of the subject of the current redirect target until this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what it shows is that it is WP:NATURAL for editors to use Wishes as a link to the Disney topic. And I would agree that it might "seem" in the abstract, that the plural is a more plausible link - but the actual evidence we have - what Wishes actually links to - shows that the band is actually the more plausible link. The question is not what you in particular would look for if you were to search for "wishes" - the question is what have our actual editors and readers shown us that they are looking for. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I had sort of stated above in the discussion about "doors", I am aware that primary topics are determined by what readers are looking for, and not what I, exclusively, am looking for; my reasoning behind why I think this may be important is that if I do not believe that a subject is a primary topic, then I am most likely not the only one who thinks this. Also, with what you had stated above, it seems like the band "Wishes" is the best topic? (I'm sure that was an accident, given that I believe that your response here was a partial copy/paste from your response regarding "doors".) In this case, the term "wishes" really might be better serves going to "Wish", given the several contexts that refer to the singular item, noun or verb, as a plural, and how the plural is used more often in fiction or everyday context. (Examples: three wishes from a genie, the phrase "best wishes", etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am amazed this has got this far. Patently "wishes" should not direct to a particulary, and somewhat obscure, Disney production. Do you want "fishes" to go to The Muppet Show then just because Brian Henson sold Jim Henson Productions to Disney after that great man's death, just because he had a character who used to juggle fishes? It is patent nonsense to redirect it this way. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if there were a well-known muppet called "Fishes", then yes, it probably would. Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a strange case. If we did decide the fireworks show were the primary topic, which seems unlikely, it should really just be moved to this title per WP:SUBTITLE. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So in what sence is "turnstiles" different from "turnstile". It could to go Turnstile (song) or Turnstile (album) but you didn't propose that. And mutatis mutandis, the others. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_26&oldid=1138579787"