Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2018.

List of cottages in Dorset[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.
  1. Consensus is keep
  2. There is a list there now, so no need for an RfD
  3. What Vanamonde93 said at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 2
~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect to a category. This redirect was created to make a point in a deletion discussion. This was restored because the deletion was by an admin who was involved, so RFD'ing. » Shadowowl | talk 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A pointy creation, followed by a pointy speedy deletion, followed by a pointy CfD... how many bytes do we have to waste on this one innocuous redirect? This is a useful redirect in that it points readers who may be searching for cottages in Dorset to several notable cottages in Dorset. The fact that there are a number of these suggests that it is also potentially a notable topic in itself (hence the {{R with possibilities}}). If the "point" Andrew was making involves creating content (however minor) that improves the encyclopaedia for our readers, he is more than welcome to make it. – Joe (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While lists and categories are not the same, we do have articles about multiple notable cottages in Dorset so someone looking for this topic will find useful content at the target. If someone wants to write a list then they can do so without needing the redirect to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK until a proper list can be created. Someone wanting a list may be confused by ending up at a category. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason to delete per WP:RFD#KEEP #7, "The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect". It's also quite daft as the page was started when a redlink was created and so returning to a red link to encourage recreation would be a loop. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We want an actual list at this title, not a redirect to a category that provides a lot less context than a proper list would. A red link shows others that there is not yet a list on this topic and encourages others to create the requested list, which is more beneficial than a redirect. Since draftspace opened a few years back, that specific point of R#K is less relevant. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the category page too and there's not much difference between that and the draft list proposed by James 500 below. As the topic now has some significant history, such as this and other discussions, we should keep all this rather than giving editors the impression that the matter has not been considered before. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Andrew D. (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize that if this redirect is deleted, the deletion summary would link to this discussion, right? That would give adequate context and history on the situation should anyone need it. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize this page will be expanded into a list article the moment this RfD is over? Then the point will be moot. This RfD is the only thing stopping immediate expansion. Incidentally, the draftspace does not work. Most editors do not even know it exists, and pages improve more quickly in the mainspace. James500 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James500: feel free to start writing the list below the RfD template on the redirect - you don't need to wait until the RfD is over. Just leave a note here when you have it in a stage where you think it is ready. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a start. I think there may be approximately three hundred listed cottages in Dorset, which will be notable under NGEO, and there are probably some other notable cottages there, so this may take some time to complete. James500 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The link is useful and there's good potential for further expansion. I have created about 10 separate pages since the concept was first suggested and so the encyclopedia is benefiting from the development of these links. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand into a list article. I think that a stub list could look something like this: [This is a select list of cottages in Dorset. Clouds Hill Martyrs' Cottages Old Came Rectory River Cottage Thomas Hardy's Cottage Category:Cottages in Dorset Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Dorset]. Plus listed cottages found here. I think this should just be expanded at once. James500 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Joe Roe but I agree entirely with James500 about the list. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (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.

Ba'athist Syria[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 retarget to Syria#Ba'athist Syria. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this redirect would make sense if pointing to a specific article on the Baathist period in the history of Syria, or the Syrian Baath party, or Baathist people in Syria. A redirect to the country's generic article does not make much sense. I suspect a neutrality issue linked to the Syrian civil war. Place Clichy (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keyboard Sonata No. 59 (Haydn）[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The final character of this redirect is a full-width closing parenthesis (U+FF09) not the standard ASCII half-width one (U+29), making it implausible - it has received only 2 hits this year. Keyboard Sonata No. 59 (Haydn) (with a half-width parenthesis) exists as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2018 (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.

Jay Briscoe ([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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a very complicated series of page moves on 10 September 2014, during which multiple articles moved around several times, sometimes overwriting redirects created by earlier moves, such that I've not managed to unpick the whole history. However, this title was the location of content for less than one day, and so is unlikely to have incoming external links and is probably now an implausible search term (although 8 hits this year is more than I would expect). If it is kept Jay Briscoe would be the better target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2018 (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.

Health Forecasting (UCLA([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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a redirect from a page move, but it the article was only here for the first two minutes of its existence in March 2009, so it is very unlikely it will have any continuing use. Thryduulf (talk)

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.

Stephni meyer[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. I am not involved but was pinged to review this. I'm closing rather than relisting a second time because there have been no new significant comments in over a week, other than JZCL's latest comment which I'm deciding to interpret as an autocorrect error rather than a deliberate personal attack. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It requires an level of ineptitude incompatible with being able to use an encyclopaedia to get the name so badly wrong. Plausible spelling errors may be worth retaining as redirects: every vaguely plausible phonetic approximation is not. Kevin McE (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has existed for almost a decade, and gets a surprising number of hits (69 between 1 January and yesterday). Google informs me that this is a spelling of the first name that at least several people do use, even though Ms Meyer doesn't. Putting this all together makes me conclude that this is a plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's page view analysis, which shows this is an obscure and implausible redirect, and serves no other purpose. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're arguments regarding page views are getting less and less connected to reality as time goes on. In what way are the best part of a hundred hits a year "implausible"? Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's less than one-tenth of the average page views the target receives per day. -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? What matters is that the redirect is useful (which it demonstrably is) not how many people it is useful for - if we use your logic we should delete both United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and Y Deyrnas Unedig as they've received only 128 and 32 hits this year, compared to 5.8 million for United Kingdom; Untied States has received 587 views this year, but United States has received 9.9 million so are you going to nominate that for deletion as not useful enough? I cannot support a tyranny of the majority. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is, other redirects may have other purposes. Page views in and of themselves do not determine whether or not a redirect is useful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've explained why Stephni is a plausible misspelling (multiple other people with a name pronounced identically use this spelling), and the page views demonstrate that this is a spelling of the subject's name used nearly a hundred times a year to find the article (unless you are arguing that it's ambiguous?). How many people would need to use this before you would regard it as useful? Why that figure? Why is it acceptable to inconvenience X people per year but not X+1 people per year? What benefits will deleting this redirect bring the to the encyclopaedia? How does this redirect differ from Untied States (a spelling error used proportionately less than this one)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Using page views to determine usefulness is a fallacious argument. X number of page views does not mean that X number of people are actively searching using this term and that X number of people will somehow not be able to find the article unless this redirect is in place. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • On nearly 100 occasions so far this year, readers of the encyclopaedia have found this redirect useful - whether that is 1 person 100 times or 100 people once is both unknowable and irrelevant. We have proof that the redirect is being used. There is no suggestion that the redirect is misleading, ambiguous or there is any other reason why someone using it is ending up at a location other than the one they wanted. Under absolutely no system of logic is it possible to take these facts and conclude anything other than a redirect that is being used to take people to the content they want to look for is anything other than a useful redirect given that the definition of "useful" is "having a practical or beneficial use". Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Once again, a page view hit does not equate to someone finding a redirect useful. Page views are entirely irrelevant precisely because we have no idea where the page views are coming from. Therefore, you cannot use page views as proof that the redirect is being used, meaning that your conclusions are based on a faulty premise. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • My removal of your hiding rebuttals to your arguments with a non-neutral summary [1] was not an expression of a desire to continue with this discussion, but if you do want to continue spouting nonsense that is up to you. Page views of redirects are absolutely evidence that one or more humans are using the redirect - human visits to the redirect are literally what are being counted. It is entirely irrelevant where the person or people using the redirect are coming from, but nobody (including you) has presented any no evidence (at all) that they are doing anything other than looking for the target article. We have a choice - we can either assume that somewhere between 1 and 100 people so far this year have used this redirect to get to the article they are looking for (in which case it is demonstrably useful and the encyclopaedia benefits from its presence) or that they exclusively due to someone artificially inflating the page views of an obscure redirect in such a way that it is not detected as automated, is orders of magnitude too small to be relevant to the various most visited pages lists (the only plausible reason anyone has ever given for inflating page views). I know which is the most likely, but even if it is the latter then there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I wasn't "hiding your rebuttals", I was hatting this entire discussion, with a note of what the discussion is about in case someone cares enough to read it since this whole discussion is a TL;DR. Because a redirect has a page view does not mean it is useful. We care about how a redirect is used, not simply that it is used. You cannot take X page views and determine that X (or even X-Y) people found a redirect useful. At least one of the "uses" of the redirect this year was Kevin McE, who found it quite the opposite of useful—so much so that he nominated it for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. First time I've ever seen "Stephni" as a spelling. Stephanie Meyer already covers the most common spelling variant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original version from 2008 matches this website and is the creating editor's only contribution. It was quickly replaced by a redirect to the existing article, but should probably have been deleted as copyvio. A Facebook profile with this name has been merged with that of the real Meyer.[2]. I wonder if the page views come from there, or if bots trawl all pages and we'd get a similar number of views for a randomly named redirect such as jsdlfkjd;alf. Certes (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Certes: the page views tools counts bots and human visitors separately, the figures I quote are for humans only. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: strikes me as a plausible enough phonetic misspelling, especially as the author's name itself uses an unusual spelling. This isn't likely to cause any confusion, as we don't, to my knowledge, have any content on any people with similar names, so there's no benefit to deleting it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really your contention that every phonetically plausible misspelling and failure of capitalisation should have a redirect? I note you have created an article on Amy Kremer, so should we have Amy kremer, Aimee Kremer, Aimee kremer, Aimée Kremer, Aimée kremer, Amie Kremer, Amie kremer, Amy kramer, Aimee Kramer, Aimee kramer, Aimée Kramer, Aimée kramer, Amie Kramer, Amie kramer, Amy kremmer, Aimee Kremmer, Aimee kremmer, Aimée Kremmer, Aimée kremmer, Amie Kremmer, Amie kremmer, Amy krammer, Aimee Krammer, Aimee krammer, Aimée Krammer, Aimée krammer, Amie Krammer, Amie krammer, Amy krehmer, Aimee Krehmer, Aimee krehmer, Aimée Krehmer, Aimée krehmer, Amie Krehmer, Amie krehmer, Amy krahmer, Aimee Krahmer, Aimee krahmer, Aimée Krahmer, Aimée krahmer, Amie Krahmer, Amie krahmer, Amy krehmmer, Aimee Krehmmer, Aimee krehmmer, Aimée Krehmmer, Aimée krehmmer, Amie Krehmmer, Amie krehmmer, Amy krahmmer, Aimee Krahmmer, Aimee krahmmer, Aimée Krahmmer, Aimée krahmmer, Amie Krahmmer, Amie krahmmer, and who knows how many more? Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly keep redirects from all plausible misspellings that have evidence of use once they are created (assuming they are not ambiguous or being used only to attack the subject, etc). Only the most commonly used should be prospectively created though, and I have not investigated whether any or all of these are or are not plausible. Basically, if the redirect will help someone find the article they are looking for then it should be kept unless there is a specific reason not to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevin McE: The proposition that a given existing redirect x should not be deleted doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that similar redirects y and z, which don't exist, ought to be created. There is a salient distinction between not deleting a redirect and creating one: most obviously that the latter requires an amount of time and effort that the latter does not; also that the fact someone has created a given redirect is a good indication that someone finds it useful; also any number of concerns specific to the redirect(s) in question (such as the fact that Krehmmer, for example, doesn't seem to be a surname that anyone has, so isn't really plausible at all). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposition that a given existing redirect x should not be deleted doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that similar redirects y and z, which don't exist, ought to be created.": thoroughly illogical. Either something should exist or it shouldn't. The creation of a redirect does not of itself establish justification for its existence: that is to imbue them with an intrinsic value.
You seem to have moved the goalposts from "plausible misspellings" to "names that anyone has". Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between not deleting something that currently exists and creating something that doesn't exist has been one that has had consensus through the many years I've been participating at RfD. When a redirect has been created by a human there is evidence (in most cases) that at least one person has thought it to be useful enough to put the effort into creation. This does not mean that every similar redirect is also useful (it doesn't imply anything either way) - each needs to be considered on its individual merits. If you (or anyone else) feels that any of the ones you list are plausible misspellings and/or otherwise useful then you or they are free to create them, but there is no requirement to, no prohibition on someone else nominating them for deletion if they disagree with you about their utility and no guarantee that the consensus in a discussion regarding it will be to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creating all the tens of variants would RFD #2: "cause confusion" especially in the search box. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We don't even have Stephni by itself. This is not a helpful phonetic as with Stefani Stephenie Stephanie Stefanie AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now created Stephni to correct that oversight as there are people who use that spelling, and it is a correct phonetic representation of how some people pronounce the name. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I lean very weakly towards thinking of this as a plausible misspelling. Since this person has a non-standard name spelling ("Stephenie" rather than "Stephanie") I can see some Wikipedia readers going "I know she has a non-standard spelling of Stephanie, so let me try S-t-e-ph-...-n-i...?" Deryck C. 14:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. If we would not endorse the creation of something, bar certain other factors, we should not endorse its existence by keeping it here. All that does is create precedents that will lead contributors to think bad redirects are worthy of imitation. Weak as this has been around since 2008 and has substantial history. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: As explained above, creating something is significantly different to not deleting something similar. There are many things we apply this to (and have for the many years I've been active at RfD) without it being a problem or setting any precedents. Bad redirects get deleted, harmless ones don't, but we encourage the creation only of actively good ones. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree. Furthermore, such a practice would be illogical and is untrue of my few years of experience here (you have been around longer; I cannot speak in regard to times long past). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a hoax creation, mirrored by the hoax Facebook page ([3] - note both the exact spelling and lower case surname) created out of the original hoax Wikipedia article (scan down to "Content from the Wikipedia article Stephni meyer (contributors) licensed under CC-BY-SA). Google hits and article page views are the result of the hoax Facebook page and our redirect still lying around. As Certes says above, the hoax article (which was a copyvio) should have been deleted rather than redirected. The Facebook page should also be deleted, but I assume it was redirected because it was based on our Wikipedia article. We are creating problems by keeping it. Lets clean up the mess and delete it, and gradually the ghosts and echoes will fade from the internet. If we leave it up, then the false existence of "Stephni meyer" will perpetuate. People landing on Facebook Stephni meyer, and clicking on the link on that page, to be silently redirected to our Stephenie Meyer article may assume that Stephni is a viable alternate spelling. It's possible that with the redirect gone, then the Facebook page will also be removed, as it will then have nothing to be based on. SilkTork (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Facebook pages are automatically created based on Wikipedia and are entirely out of our control. The existence or otherwise of one is entirely irrelevant to what we do with page titles, and indicate nothing at all about why an article, redirect or other page on Wikipedia was created. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This might have been a good faith attempt at creating an article for the author, possibly by someone without a strong grasp of English. Nonetheless, a Google search shows that "Stephni" is a valid, though less common spelling for "Stephanie". The redirect gets enough views to indicate that real people use it, it's a longstanding redirect, it's a phonetically correct spelling for the name of a person with a non-standardly spelled name, and AFAIK there is no one named "Stephni Meyer" that this could be confused with. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was tentatively prepared to say "weak keep" by Deryck's logic, that maybe a reader remembers that Stephenie Meyer doesn't have a standard spelling, but guesses wrong on what it was. The 69 hits in the first eight months of the year is something, though still fewer than 10 per month. Nor am I concerned about the disparity with page views of the target, because that's where we want readers to end up—it should absolutely dwarf views of its redirects, or we likely have a problem. But what tipped me was looking at page views from earlier years: 38 in 2016, 21 in 2017! That is really not a lot, and makes me think the (slight) uptick in views this year could just be people messing around in the search bar and seeing where this takes them. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: It could be, in which case what is the harm in keeping the redirect? It could just as easily be that more people are looking for her under this name, in which case they and we benefit from keeping the redirect and deletion inconveniences people by making it harder to find the article they are looking for. Unless you have evidence that nobody used this redirect to find the article they were looking for then we harm the encyclopaedia by deleting a useful redirect without gaining any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We can disagree about the significance of different numbers of page counts, but you must admit that "evidence that nobody used this redirect to find the article they were looking for [emphasis mine]" is an extraordinarily high bar. What would that even look like—equal numbers of page views and individual users complaining that a redirect didn't work as intended? --BDD (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there's seriously no harm in keeping this redirect, and others have made great points about the fact that, however unlikely, "Stephni" is still a somewhat plausible attempt to find Stephenie Meyer's unstandard name spelling. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've come here twice to close this, and both times haven't seen a consensus either way. Another sysop may disagree, or think a relist would be beneficial for more input (especially as this discussion is (somehow?) still ongoing) but I can't rightly close as it turns out I have an opinion. I'm sympathetic to the argument that her name is nonstandard, so perhaps a nonstandard phonetic redirect might be warranted, but it's not just that. Not only is this is a redirect from a (very) incorrect misspelling of the first name, but the last name is incorrectly capitalized. I don't think anyone's mentioned that yet, but for me anyway, despite the age of this, that puts it squarely in the "too many wrongs to make a right" category. It's also worth noting that the initial content is a copyright violation, an amalgamation of several of pages from https://stepheniemeyer.com/ which would seem to indicate that the user should have known how to spell the name (not to mention that Meyer's name is used in the copied material). Should've been deleted a decade ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very WP:INVOLVED relisting, done to allow the 3 September page to be closed. Any uninvolved admin may close this at any time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stephni yeilds 155k hits on Google and from what I can see is actually a genuine name, or at the very least a popular misspelling. The redirect is doing no harm and as pointed out above yields a significant enough number of hits yearly. Moreover Stephni is a correct phonetic spelling and could be useful to non-native speakers of English. JZCL 23:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why this particular Stephenie over any other individual with that name? We should create a similar redirect for every one or maintain none at all, unless affinity can be shown. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been explained above - just because a redirect is created does not mean every possible similar redirect should be created. If you believe that any individual redirect is useful then go ahead and create it, but mass creating redirects from "Stephni" to every person named "Stephanie" or some variation thereof would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Each redirect does not exist in its own vaccum. Redirect variations are either justified or not; unless affinity is established, a keep here rationalizes anyone who believes this is a useful variation to do just that (i.e. create them en masse). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it doesn't. Each redirect is judged on its own merits - just because one misspelling is useful for one target implies nothing about whether the same misspelling is useful for other targets or whether different misspellings are useful for that or other targets. This is why we delete some misspellings and keep other misspellings at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless affinity is demonstrated, this misspelling is just as useful for this target as all similar ones. By your "vaccum" argument, precedent and guidance, e.g. WP:RFD/CO, would be meaningless. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Various people have explained here why this is a useful search term for this target. WP:RFDCO explicity says "All redirects should be evaluated individually on their merits and their usefulness to readers." and "Don't rely too much on these "common outcomes" when stating a case at Redirects for Discussion. Precedent can be useful to help resolve these debates, but editors are not bound to follow past practice. Furthermore, for most examples on this page, counter-examples exist. This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.". Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Most such arguments that have been made are that Stephni may be useful in general but not specifically in this particular case over other potential similar ones. The only argument specific to this target is page views; the usefulness of page views is disputed and there is nothing to empirically compare it to. Lastly, your selective quoting aside, I meant for example in a general sense; your argument(s) seem to be (perhaps openly and intentionally) severely discounting informal precedent as well as essays and guidelines. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't understand what you are trying to say regarding selective quoting - I have quoted the entire relevant parts of the guideline you referenced to show that it backs up my argument that redirects are discussed on their individual merits and there is no strict precedent. As for this specific redirect, page views are disputed but not with evidence-backed arguments - it is undeniable that humans are using this redirect (compare to the truly implausible redirects that get around 2-8 hits per year), and it is implausible that anyone using it intentionally is looking for a different target. Others have commented that the subject has a non-standard spelling and so people are more likely to search using this spelling than they would for someone who spells their name "Stephanie". If you believe that a redirect from "Stephni" would be useful for other people with this name, then feel free to create them individually and be prepared to defend them should they be nominated for deletion. If that happens some people may choose to use the same arguments they have done here, others may not - nobody is bound by precedent and just because this redirect is kept implies nothing about others. Common outcomes observes patterns over tens or more of discussions, and even then explicitly notes that there are likely to be exceptions, it does not extrapolate from one discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what about the misspelling in conjunction with the lowercased last name? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix (obscure), SilkTork (hoax artifact), BDD (insignificant volume), Armory (should have been deleted years ago).  — Scott • talk 14:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott: Could you explain it which sense this redirect is a "hoax artifact"? And yes I have read SillyTork's argument but note Thryduulf's response. JZCL 19:01, 6 October 2018 (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.

Legally Blondes 2[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 Legally Blonde (franchise). The history implies this was initially intended for a (fake?) sequel to Legally Blondes, which has no bearing but figured it was worth noting since it wasn't mentioned below. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is probably an implausible typo of the correct title (which is Legally Blonde 2), given the use of the '2' after the mistaken 's'. No links in WLH, and users probably would not have too much difficulty identifying the correct article with a deletion of this redirect. Izno (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Legally Blonde (franchise). Given that one of the films in this series is called Legally Blondes it strikes me as very plausible that someone will be searching for the second film under this name - and circa 90 people have used the redirect so far this year which also suggests it's not an implausible search term. However, it is plausible that they could be looking for either Legally Blondes, Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde or the forthcomming Legally Blonde 3 (the first film to be released after Legally Blondes). The franchise page is in my opinion the article that will most easily allow them to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to franchise as above. That there was a Blondes film implies the next films could be Blonde or Blondes so the franchise serves this inquiry best. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2018 (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.

Windermere, Cumbria[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. This discussion has concluded that the primary topic of "Windermere" is the lake, which is in Cumbria; but the name, county format of the title is more likely to refer to the town than the body of water. This gives the town a leg up in regards to this particular title. All comments considered, pointing to the disambiguation page is the least objected outcome and so I'm closing this as keep. Deryck C. 14:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary topic "Windermere" is in Cumbria, "Windermere, Cumbria" should follow it. Unlike in the US the "Placename, State" isn't WP:COMMONAME its just disambiguation. The move request at Talk:Windermere, Cumbria (town)#Requested move 16 January 2016 was completed in January 2016 so I think we've allowed plently of time for external sites to update the links. When a topic is at the base name it should be procedural that any title that uses artificial disambiguation follows it (example). There is also an open discussion at Talk:Finsbury Park, London#Requested move 5 September 2018. It was noted at the RM that although it was targeted to the DAB page, a case could be made for it to go to the lake and to use RFD for that, which is what this is now. Note that Windermere, England does redirect to the lake. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget to the town. My first thought was that I would expect Windermere, Cumbria to be or lead to the town article, the article about the lake to be at Lake Windermere and Windermere to be a dab between them, the railway station and any other uses. I certainly would not expect to arrive at an article about the lake when using "Place, County" format. Windermere (Cumbria) is currently red, but I'd expect that to lead to either the lake or the dab. I visited the area, including the lake and town, almost exactly a month ago, so this perception might be influenced by what I saw/heard while there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't go to the town if the lake at "Windermere" is also in Cumbria. Maybe it might be worth considering the location of the lake article as pointed out in the RM but I expect the lake is primary for "Windermere" so "Windermere, Cumbria" should also go there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's certainly a reasonable enough argument that if the lake is the primary topic for "Windermere," and the lake is in Cumbria, then "Windermere, Cumbria" ought to point to the lake. But the point above is reasonable too: it strikes me as unusual to refer to a lake in the "place, county" format, which is much more commonly used to refer to settlements. So I don't know what a reader who searches for this is likely to be looking for, and in the absence of anything approaching certainty on that question, the disambiguation page seems like the most appropriate target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lake is listed twice then on the dab page, as primary topic and in that United Kingdom subsection AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some very good arguments here. While it's possible there may be other changes or discussions relevant to this, I think fleshing out the discussion here would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the exact same reasons as in my first comment, I think Windermere, England should target either the town in Cumbria or the disambiguation page. A hanote to the dab page can be added to the article about the town if either are targetted there so readers can find the pub in South Kenton or whatever else they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning is that there are a number of topics outside Cumbria and England called "Windermere" (though they are small town, suburbs or just 1 building) so if "Windermere" is unambiguous enough to refer to the lake then "Windermere, England" is even less ambiguous and "Windermere, Cumbria" less still. In addition to the fact that the town has a specific hatnote on the article at Windermere. I agree that if we keep the redirect to the DAB of "Windermere, Cumbria" then "Windermere, England" should also go to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that people using the "Placename, County" or "Placename, Country" search terms they are more likely to be looking for a settlement than a lake as bodies of water are not normally titled that way on Wikipedia, but settlements are. If people were looking for the lake then "Lake Windermere" or maybe just "Windermere" would be significantly more likely search terms (although I remain unconvinced there is a primary topic between the lake and town for just "Windermere"). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Placename, County" or "Placename, Country" aren't terms, just like Georgia (state) isn't (see that RFD). Its just that more often settlements require disambiguation than natural features. This anyway shows that they are both called "Windermere" even though "Lake Windermere" is a common term for it. I'm OK for the redirects to redirect to the DAB, even though I'd 1st choice recommend the lake. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything someone enters into a search box (whether the internal one or some other) is a search term. Not all search terms need redirects (e.g. I searched earlier today for "NewY ork (disambiguation)") but they are still search terms. "Windermere, Cumbria", "Windermere, England" and "Georgia (state)" are all very likely search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Lakes aren't referred to in this format. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nether is the town, its just that we have to DAB towns more often with the location than lakes, so the argument that it should go to the DAB is probably reasonably enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2018 (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.

Civil society organisation[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 as the least resisted proposal. Deryck C. 14:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to talk about these, primarily: what are these and why do they all point to different things? I'll notify to page creators to see if we can come to a less-confusing consensus. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, another one! I'll absolutely add it. Thanks for looking through the articles to figure out what the general meaning of the term is. The keeps/retargets sound good. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 00:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a better idea. Which spelling would it be disambiguated to? originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 06:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear what exactly a new disambiguation page would look like. Given what we're talking about in terms of the concept here, I'd rather that we just send them all to the page 'non-governmental organization'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a disambiguation page would be a good idea because (per SilkTork above) I'm not sure if this concept is exactly the same as Non-governmental organization which seems the closest match; but which I added). In terms of spelling, I can comment that the 'z' is used in North America (elsewhere too?); the 's' is not. This is not an American English phrase (though I can't comment on whether it's in Canadian English), so I'd lean towards the 's'. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of options, not a lot of agreement. Processing note: The fourth redirect wasn't tagged, but is now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. I'm not sure that a disambiguation page is the best thing that can be done here, but it seems better than any of the other options on the table at present. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget/keep so they all point to Civil society, which seems like the closest match to me. That article has plenty of discussion of organizations. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2018 (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.

HPod[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible typos and do not seem to refer to the target at all. There is not prominent usage of these terms even from Google searches, only many obscure topics. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. HPOD points to Harvard Law School Project on Disability while hPOD points to hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose [5], neither of which have a page here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't agree that HPod and Hpod are not plausible typos, but they clearly could refer to various things, and are no more likely to be a typo for "iPod" than for hood or HPPD or Douglas Coupland's JPod. Fipod began life as a dictionary definition of an abbreviation for "fake iPod", and Urban Dictionary attests to this meaning, but the word isn't mentioned in the target or any in another article, so the redirect is no use to anyone. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but none of these are typos at all, the history makes that clear. In particular, HPod is in reference to iPod+HP, when HP sold the iPod for a bit (a well-known terrible decision at the time, it got some extra play when Fiorina ran for POTUS/VPOTUS). I can find no sources that anyone referred to it as the HPod at the time, and my recollection is that the whole thing played out so quickly there was barely time (much less desire) for a name to even be created. The two HPod ones are from 2006, so they're old and could be worth retargeting to iPod+HP, but I don't think doing so would be accurate. Fipod seems to be a neologism and, while I vaguely recall it being used at the time, it was short-lived at best and never widely used given the quick dominance of the iPod. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 24 September 2018 (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.

Map (song)[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 Maps (disambiguation)#Music. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason to be redirected there. Also Map (disambiguation) cites several similar uses. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are no entries at Map (disambiguation) that match and readers won't be helped. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Maps (disambiguation)#Music. "Maps" for "Map" is a very plausible misremembering of a song title, but it is ambiguous so we should send people looking for this to the place those songs we have articles about are listed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a plausible error given the lyrics only refer to "Map" in the singular. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the song "Map" is no longer listed at Maps (disambiguation) per Fyrae's edit, so should it still redirect to Maps just because that's the more common list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 21 September 2018 (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.

Plane (song)[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 Plane#Entertainment. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason to be redirected there. Also Plane cites several similar uses. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Plane (disambiguation)#Entertainment where various songs named "Planes"/"Planez" are listed. Misremembering "plane" or "planez" as "plane" is very plausible, and mishearing might also be (although I'm not familiar with any of the songs listed to say for sure). Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. I've also added a couple of WP:DABMENTION songs called "The Plane" there too. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2018 (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.

Great British Mobility[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great British Mobility Group is defunct since 2016 but a different company with the name Great British Mobility LTD is actively trading User:Ian13388 who requested the move claimed the wikipedia page is causing harm. The new company may not be notable but I am not satisfied with the justification to keep the redirect. DBigXrayᗙ 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from move}}, and if someone is looking for "Great British Mobility" - which is better, going to a page that has an explanation at the top incase they're looking for the other company and an full article if they are indeed looking for "Great British Mobility Group", or a redlink? Also breaks internal links and possibly external links. The deletion was invalid anyways (invalid use of suppress redirect - one can only suppress redirect when the redirect meets a CSD criteria) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Galobtter created this redirect on 7 September 2018. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the article at Great_British_Mobility_Group existed at the title from 2012 until it was moved on that date Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main issue is that the wikipedia article shows in the knowledge box on google search for Great British Mobility.With the actively trading companies logo, The article is even confusing google, nevermind my 90 year old customers who keep calling asking if I've gone under. Ian13388 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd just like to also point out that the article is talking about a company that hasn't been trading for over 6 years and the content is not relevant. I'm a wikipedia novice but I think I can make an argument for it falling under CSD for G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. The page only serves to harm the reputation of Great British Mobility LTD (trading since 2003) by wrongly associating it with the Great British Mobility Group. 185.47.219.183 (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I've argued elsewhere (see BCash and Davidson (Software Company)) we shouldn't let non-notable entities with similar names affect redirects or article titles for notable topics (or for topics like Great British Mobility Group, which may or may not be notable, but has an article). The redirect doesn't cause any confusion with any topic covered in the encyclopaedia; taking into accounts topics that we don't mention anywhere (the only other mentions of "Great British Mobility" are in 2006–07 World Bowls Tour and 2007–08 World Bowls Tour, both of which refer to the current target) is unreasonably restrictive. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is both non notable and confusing, not directly through wikipedia but I searched google for great british mobility and google shows the wiki article as the first result. I had just purchased an item for £800 and then google is telling me the company is in liquidation. I can see why the tradnig company wants it removed with no redirect. It is super confusing and given the information in the article is both irrelevant and non-notable its existence is pointless.94.10.237.212 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. The current hatnote at the target is sufficient for readers to differentiate the two and address the concerns of the non-insolvent business, even if it is an WP:IAR hatnote. Unless the still-operating company is also notable per our standards or the defunct company is not notable, this redirect should stay. An analogous example would be if a non-notable company called "British East India" requested that their name should not redirect to the East India Company.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts and Patar knight. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2018 (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.

A Girl in a Lower Grade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 3#A Girl in a Lower Grade

Criticism of Islam/Sub article: History of criticism of Islam ; Modern criticism of Islam[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. Deryck C. 15:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search terms. Note that history of the first redirect contains a POV fork of the target article. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both These are obviously useless as redirects, so the only real question is whether it's worth keeping the history. I've looked at this for a bit, but I don't see how the history is useful for any reason moving forward. -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2018 (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.

Dervish Movement (1899-1920)[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 deleted by TomStar81. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a long list of redirects that give specific date ranges that are not mentioned in the article. The dervish movement is mentioned once but there are no periods such as 1899 to 1920 mentioned Dom from Paris (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full list
I do see coverage of a Dervish Movement from 1900-1920. [6] But regardless, Dervish Movement should have a hatnote for this other period. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, AngusWOOF, there was already a discussion about changing the title of the article to Dervish movement in the article's talk page [[7]], with an understanding that Dervish movement is appropriate, but Thylacoop, without discussion, preemptively created redirects to Mahdist War using every single title suggested in the talk page, I've asked them to explain their edits but got no reasonable response. Mahdist War is unrelated to the Somali Dervish movement. And as AngusWoof points out, Dervish movement as a title is covered in reputable sources [8], [9]. I have presented all of this in the talk page but Thylacoop continues to unilaterally move the article back. I have now added (Somali) to the title since they have created a redirect to Mahdist War at Dervish movement, so the title is Dervish movement (Somali). Is there a way to reclaim the redirect Dervish movement? Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has created 40 Dervish movement redirects to Somaliland Campaign with a whole variety of dates and 8 different version with hyphens and dashes and spaces and capitalisation per date range. I don't know if anyone has a quick way of posting them here? --Dom from Paris (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was about to do a mass delete of these pages on grounds that the editor in question had been blocked for disruptive editing at ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Thylacoop5), however I see they've been listed here and I'm now uncertain as to whether or not a mass delete wold be appropriate. I personally feel they should be deleted, but I'll let this play out here to see what the community thinks. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I'm okay with WP:TNT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how two here had no objections and Klz55 had complained about this at the ANI thread, I've chalked that up to 3 supports and went ahead with the mass deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liberation Day (United Kingdom)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to delete. While only a minority of editors argued for deletion, the vast majority of editors argued that the current target was wrong. There are also strong arguments that the proposed targets are wrong in some way: "liberation day UK" seems to be more used for V-E Day and the Channel Islands liberation day; but the Channel Islands aren't actually part of the United Kingdom. Given also that this redirect was nominated for deletion less than a month after it was created, the status quo ante of not having a redirect is the most feasible outcome here. Deryck C. 14:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects need not be neutral, but this might be an novel or obscure synonym (WP:RDEL #8). My US-based Google search "liberation day" uk tilts heavily towards Liberation Day (Channel Islands) and the broader topic of Victory in Europe Day, with some local events on unrelated topics sprinkled in. Nothing about Brexit in the first five pages. Perhaps worth the caveat that the Channel Islands aren't part of the UK, and that VE Day isn't called "Liberation Day" in the UK proper, though both seem very plausible errors for the readership of a global encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Liberation Day (Channel Islands), which seems to be the most common use of this, even if the Channel Islands technically aren't the UK. The fact is that the vast majority of our non-British readers aren't going to understand that distinction. While redirects don't have to be neutral, this is not a plausible search term like Barack Obama is a Muslim, Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, Bush did 9/11, or other politically charged non-neutral redirects. Smartyllama (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Liberation Day (Channel Islands) is blatantly incorrect, as the Channel Islands aren't part of the UK, so we shouldn't be encouraging misinformation. And the UK wasn't liberated in WW2, so VE Day wasn't a liberation day. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have {{R from incorrect name}}, which we should use if we go that route. The point is not to trick anyone, but to assist readers with understandable misnomers (e.g., Prime Minister of the United States). The distinctions between "British Isles", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom", etc. can be quite misunderstood, and I suspect many readers who see images of the holiday, full of waving of UK flags, would be surprised to learn that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK—you might also note that I acknowledged this in the nomination. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia shouldn't be providing misleading statements just because some people think they might be true. Prime Minister of the USA is just ridiculous. Under this logic, we should redirect Britain loves the EU to Brexit because someone in the world might think they're the same. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your argument is even more strongly applicable to the current target. Are you sure you intended to !vote "keep", rather than "delete"? – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Liberation Day (Channel Islands) per nom and Joseph2302. Redirects are not required to be accurate, and it strikes me as plausible that someone unfamiliar with the legal status of Jersey and Guernsey might search for this in the hopes of finding that article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I've got to object in that since the United Kingdom was the country doing the actual liberating of the islands, well... it seems not entirely wrong for some reasonable searcher to type this in. I don't object to people calling the act of leaving the EU "liberation", but it's absolutely not the sort of thing that I've seen get reliable source coverage. We should just go to 'Liberation Day (Channel Islands)'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may have been tolerable of an {{R from incorrect name}} if the Channel Islands holiday was the only thing this could possibly refer to, but that is simply not the case. BDD also mentioned VE Day, but there also exists Liberation Day (Falkland Islands), which is a similar situation in that it is British and not part of the UK, and Liberation Day (Hong Kong) which was celebrated when Hong Kong was under British rule. If we have to retarget it somewhere, the best option is probably Liberation Day as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Liberation Day (a list of holidays so called) so that readers can select which they are acutally interested in from the several that this term is nearly correct for, per the spirit of {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it goes to the general Liberation Day article, the target should mention Channel Islands somewhere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: it mentions Jersey and Guernsey separately. "Channel Islands" is used in the title of reference 5 which supports the entry for Guernsey. I haven't got time right now to see if I can work a mention of the exact term in to the body, but you don't need to wait for me. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2018 (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.

Sea squirt[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 Ascidiacea. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These should all point to the same target. From reading the lead of both articles I think Ascidiacea is the better place as it starts "Ascidiacea (commonly known as the ascidians or sea squirts)" whereas at Tunicate it's not until the last sentence that you see any mention: "Various species are commonly known as sea squirts, sea pork, sea livers, or sea tulips." (the link is to the Sea squirt redirect). However I am far from an expert in this field so I will leave a note on the target talk pages and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article should be under the common name Sea squirt and that Ascidiacea should be a redirect to Sea squirt. Wikipedia policy is to use common names for article titles and Ascidiacea is a paraphyletic taxon. If the article remains at Ascidiacea then all the sea squirt variants should redirect there.   Jts1882 | talk  06:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: I've certainly got no objection to the article being at Sea squirt it is not uncommon for articles about species not to follow WP:COMMONNAME (and I've never cared enough to investigate why), so if you want to move it I'd discuss it first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Common or scientific name is a topic that comes up regularly on various animal and plant project pages. Some people argue that scientific names should be used over common names, but Wikipedia policy is otherwise. If the article doesn't use the common name it is usually because there are several commonly used names or some ambiguity (also used for similar animal or plant). Here the article is clearly about sea squirts and the uncertainty is over the validity of the taxon name as a valid monophyletic group. I don't personally think it matters much whether the article uses Ascidiacea or sea squirt (as long as the redirects work), but it makes sense that all variants of sea squirt point to the same article.   Jts1882 | talk  13:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that last sentence entirely, and getting all the redirects pointing to the same place is my aim here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Tree of life notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect. Keep the first and redirect the other three to Ascidiacea. I realise that I said this more or less above, but I didn't give a final opinion and no one else has added theirs so hopefully this helps a final decision.   Jts1882 | talk  10:24, 25 September 2018 (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/2018_September_17&oldid=1036305488"