Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 25, 2019.

Dogs in urban environments[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any type of dog, including domesticated ones, can be in an urban environment. In other words, this redirect is misleading since it assumes that all dogs in urban environments are street dogs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to urban dog which is a start on the broad topic. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing/misleading, and not a likely search term. I can't see this helping readers. Colin M (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is inaccurate and urban dog is up for deletion. In the unlikely event that the latter article is kept (uniformly "delete" so far except creator) then we should retarget, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen. SpinningSpark 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (original target, do not retarget) - while I respect that there are other categorizations for dogs that live in urban environments, they're not exclusive to urban environments. Street dogs are, at least according to that article's lede. I find it unlikely someone looking for information on dogs kept as pets would go to the effort of searching under this term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear why this phrase would even be a search term. Reywas92Talk 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term that could only be targeted at either (a) an article that only discusses part of the concept, like Street dog or Dog#As pets or (b) the currently-AfD'ed Urban dog article stub, which I dispute the encyclopedic relevance of in the first place, as it's too vague a concept to have specific referenced coverage of. ~ mazca talk 12:32, 3 July 2019 (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.

Newspaper.com[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. ~ mazca talk 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing website newspaper.com appears to be unrelated. As a consequence, I'm uncertain whether it should be considered a valid r from typo signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2019 (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.

Growing elephant ear plants[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. 12:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the elephant ear disambiguation page. Four of the six articles linked from there describe the conditions in which elephant ear plants are grown (and for what purpose, etc.). To the extent that an encyclopedia provides a general overview of a topic, those are it for "growing elephant ear plants". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOTHOWTO, we don't need titles that imply "how to". Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they would, per my comment above. Not just for one of the several varieties of plant known as elephant ear, but for several of them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alocasia#Cultivation, Caladium#Cultivation and uses and Colocasia#Cultivation all contain significant information about growing these plants. Xanthosoma and Arctium sort of do but not as directly or as completely, only Bergenia crassifolia contains no relevant information. So it's clear that in the majority of cases someone searching for this will find at least some of what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (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.

Woof alert[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this is supposed to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to mean different things. Hits range from dogs for adoption, warnings about things such as high temp that can harm dogs to ahem... kinky things --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unexplained neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. My Furbo has a woof alert (of sorts) but mostly just catches my cats doing things, and warns me when certain people are on the radio. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 27 June 2019 (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.

Giant rodent[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 List of largest rodents. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely to me that someone typing in giant rodent is looking for capybara than for any species of rat. I don't think a retarget to capybara would be right; my inclination is towards either delete or retarget to rodent. Narky Blert (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2019 (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.

Winged lizard[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draco volans is just one example of an actual winged lizard, and I'm sure there are more. Someone else is probably more knowledgeable about the subject and could make a better dab page than I could. signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Flying and gliding animals#Reptiles, since Draco is not the only "flying" lizard. PC78 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flying and gliding animals#Reptiles seems like a good option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate? - It seems like multiple targets are being discussed, but I do believe the redirect should at least be retargeted away from Dragon. InvalidOS (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation sounds like the best solution here. bd2412 T 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless any of the above mentioned potential targets are referred to as "winged lizard" as an alternative name (which it seems they are not), a disambiguation page would not be accurate since the subjects do not have this name. Let the search function do its job and not be hindered by a misleading disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Winged lizard" is the literal meaning of Pterosaur so a redirect there might be appropriate if it's not considered a valid search term for any of the above (though I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment). PC78 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Could mean either Pterosaur or Dragon (which are winged lizards imo). I'd be happy to draft it. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Let's not an overly literal interpretation of disambiguation style guidelines get in the way of helping our readers. This is a plausible search term for several things (dragons, pterosaurs, flying and gliding reptiles) that are accurately described by this term but do not contain it and so are mostly not found by the search engine. Although note that flying lizard (disambiguation) exists it does not list dragon. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Let's not an overly literal interpretation of disambiguation style guidelines get in the way of helping our readers..." That's actually exactly what we are supposed to do since disambiguation both 1) are supposed to represent actual names/titles of subjects, and 2) should not block more helpful search results. In the case, creating a disambiguation page here with the topics mentioned thus far would be problematic as both not containing actual name/title matches and would block the functionality of the Wikipedia's search function. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create SIA (or DAB). This reminds me of stuffed flatbread - not the formal name of any of the listed items, but a reasonable descriptive name of any of them. I've drafted an SIA for consideration. Deryck C. 12:24, 3 July 2019 (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.

Xbox compatible[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 5#Xbox compatible

Juha wuolijoki[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to have a redirect for a lower-case name like this. Lepricavark (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (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.

Untitled Annabelle film[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. Consensus leans towards deletion, because information will still be visible in the logs, and this redirect is only getting worse, not better, as time goes by. ~ mazca talk 22:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer untitled. Has no incoming links from the "article" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Remove the redirect, keep as Annabelle Comes Home. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This film hasn't even been released yet, and the redirect is registering 8 hits per day. But revisit in the near future, as it seems reasonably likely that there could be additional films in this series. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer a valid search term. PC78 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8 readers a day disagree with you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you disagree with me. The film is no longer untitled, so the redirect is inaccurate and misleading. PC78 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This film is scheduled to be released next week, so we can leave this discussion open until then.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an {{R from move}} dating from March. Such redirects continue to have use for a time after the move so that people can continue to find the content they are looking for even if they don't know the new title. This usage tails off after a period of time but the statistics show that it hasn't done yet. Come back when it's getting single digit numbers of views per year rather than per day. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The film is no longer untitled so this is an inaccurate way of describing the film. If this redirect is deleted, the logs will appear in that pink box, telling people that the article formerly at this title was moved to Annabelle Comes Home on 15 March 2019 by Cardei012597 and offers a link to the new title. Deletion also has the added benefit of discouraging further use of this outdated redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tavix's observations about log behaviour, and the fact that we agreed to delete all of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_14#"Upcoming"_redirects, pushed me to lean towards wanting to delete this one as well. Deryck C. 09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer a useful title. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:52, 8 July 2019 (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.

Nuea[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED WP:DICDEF, which is only mentioned in passing in target article. Paul_012 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question: Is "nuea" a Thai word, and if so, what does it mean? (I can't get a translation for it on search engines.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know Thai, but เนื้อ has a romanization of "nuea" and seems like it is roughly relevant to food. --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...And to further confuse this whole situation, per the edit histories of some of these pages, this redirect may even be misspelled. Some of the related pages' edit histories hint that the actual spelling of this word is "neua" instead of "nuea". Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuea in this case is the romanisation of the Thai word เนื้อ, which means "meat" or "beef". (It can also be a romanisation of เหนือ, which means "north".) Neua is a misspelling, or a non-standard spelling used by the creator of the original stub, which as a WP:DICDEF didn't warrant an article and was redirected (by me) in 2008. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:47, 25 June 2019 (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.

Syriac Latin alphabet[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 Syriac alphabet#Latin alphabet and romanization. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the target has no mention of a "Syriac Latin alphabet", and as noted at Talk:Romanization of Syriac back in 2017, it's dubious whether such a thing exists at all. 194.29.32.132 (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:40, 25 June 2019 (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.

Romanization of Syriac[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 Syriac alphabet#Latin alphabet and romanization. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the target has no mention of romanization, so the redirect is misleading. 194.29.32.132 (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:40, 25 June 2019 (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.

Sack of Florence[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 Siege of Florence. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like Florence was sacked in this battle.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this site states that Florence was sacked in 1530, and this one mentions a sack of Florence in 542. Several others mention threatened and averted sackings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from what Thryduulf said, mentioning several sacks, this redirect seems too vague to link to just one article. If possible though, I would disambiguate it. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:29, 25 June 2019 (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.

The Green Bag (magazine)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#The Green Bag (magazine)

DOAAFKRJJ[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. If by some miracle this initialism becomes ambiguous, we can always revisit. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an original initialism with no usage in reliable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, Google search draws a complete blank. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue the same thing about DKL, which redirects to Donkey Kong Land. We have a DOAWK redirect, and Diary of an Awesome Friendly Kid is a spin-off, so I gave it an abbreviated redirect too. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "Original" is a concern, but it's an unambiguous, logical shortening of a long work title. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD, I can't exactly anticipate huge use of such a long abbreviation, but it's an unambiguous initialism of a very long title that is unlikely to apply to anything else. Redirects are cheap and I really can't see how this one could harm the readability of anything. ~ mazca talk 12:23, 3 July 2019 (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.

Khristie Bandhu[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. Deryck C. 09:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the target, though it's questionable and it's spelled wrong. It should be Khristi Bandhu. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:32, 25 June 2019 (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.

Netorare[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 Hentai#Genres where mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Apparently a Japanese word, so delete per WP:FORRED Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, that's a bad target. The previous target of cuckold was better but still wrong. A redlink to encourage article creation would be the best since there is currently no coverage of this term/subgenre. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary, and should not contain romanised versions of random Japanese words, unless they are discussed and explained in the article. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the proposed alternative target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:23, 25 June 2019 (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.

Alliance of the Libertarian Left[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. Per below.Involved closed (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target (except as a publisher of one of the references), nor discussed in sufficient depth in any other articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a usual case because there is no article at Alliance of the Libertarian Left.North8000 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a redirect. This is Redirects for discussion, where we discuss redirects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake North8000 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tough. It looks like this is an organization with local branches; the Tulsa one is the publisher of the reference the nominator mentions. There's definitely reason for deletion in that we don't discuss the organization, and if someone searches the term looking for the organization, they'll be disappointed. But I can also see someone searching the term just to get a sense of the underlying ideology. Not that "left-libertarianism" is especially unintuitive or anything, but if you don't know it, you don't know it. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What BDD writes makes sense to me.  I'd say that a bona fide article should be created for the alliance, but that, until one is created, the current redirect should remain.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or retarget (*), the organization not mentioned, and we have a redirect at "Libertarian Left" which should be enough to cover the concept - Nabla (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(*)PS: after u:MJL's edits (See below) retargetting to "Roderick T. Long" also makes sense. And probably more (though I don't like to have redirects for stuff for which search works just fine, I am not everybody :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone searching with the full organization name is most likely wanting specific information on the organization, which we cannot offer a searcher. As Nabla points out, someone searching for the ideology can use "Libertarian Left". -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while BDD (talk · contribs)'s rationale makes perfect sense, "Left-libertarianism" would high in the search results if one did search for this organisation. As the organisation isn't mentioned in the article, I'd argue that a search result page would be more useful to the reader, and a redlink would be more useful to encourage the potential creation of an article here if it can be referenced. ~ mazca talk 12:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to retarget to Roderick T. Long per @MJL: below; arguments regarding search results being preferable to the lack of specific coverage existing otherwise are rather mitigated by Mr Long's article being expanded to mention the organisation. If a full article on the organisation can be written and justified with reliable source coverage in future, great, but redirecting to it in this context definitely seems to assist the encyclopedia reader in the meantime. ~ mazca talk 02:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Roderick T. Long. Sorry for swooping in last minute here, but I've increased our coverage of the subject. Long is a co-founder of the organization and rather influential in left-libertarian thought, so here we are. The article on Long could use less WP:RSSELF, but it'll have to do for now while it still gets worked on. @Mazca, Tavix, BDD, Arms & Hearts, Nabla, Allixpeeke, North8000, and Deryck Chan: Could I get your thoughts on this, please? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks good to me. Thanks for your work on the Long article MJL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arms & Hearts: Don't mention it! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. Good idea. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work! With the article being updated, that obviously makes the previous delete votes irrelevant because they are due to a lack of mention anywhere. In fact, I think this can be speedily retargeted. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, per my adjusted statement above I'd agree with @Tavix: that this can probably be promptly retargeted! Definitely a good solution to an otherwise debatable redirect, well done MJL. ~ mazca talk 02:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix and Mazca: Thank you both! It means a lot to hear I did a decent job here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:40, 6 July 2019 (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.

Abelone[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 Chasselas. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, not mentioned in the target article but is presumably an R from misspelling, is ambiguous (eg with the wine variety listed in List of grape varieties) and should be deleted to avoid confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a very plausible misspelling. There is already a hatnote to the grape variety, which is a much less common use than the misspelling. Abelone is a Danish name (see da:Abelone) but I can't find any reliable sources about to write an article (tons of unreliable ones though, the da.wp article is unsourced) and we don't have articles about anyone with the name. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there are entities for which the term is the proper spelling, then they always take precedence over any misspellings, no matter how obscure they might be. In this case, they're too obscure to themselves be eligible as targets of a redirect (the main candidate is the grape variety, which is simply a mention among what look like thousands other mentions in a big list, without any readily identifiable source). Deletion to reveal the search results is best, with the possible creation of Abelone (sea snail) as an {{R from misspelling}} to help the current target remain prominent. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Abelone (sea snail) as a {{R from misspelling}}. That should handle search results; "Abelone" as a {{R from misspelling}} can be retargetted to Abalone (disambiguation) which lists both the snail and the grape (as a confusion see also) , or deleted. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: How will it benefit Wikipedia to actively hinder people reaching the content they are looking for because something with a similar spelling is too obscure to be searched for? I've been thinking about this off and on for a few hours and I'm still drawing a blank. If there are two similarly prominent things the correct spelling will usually take precedence and a hatnote added at the target, but if the misspelling is the primary topic by a significant margin then hindering people reaching it feels distinctly spiteful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two main groups of readers: those who type "Abalone" but are actually looking for the snail, and those who are looking for any of the things properly called this name. Deleting this redirect presents both groups of readers with the search results, from which they can see where is the article they need. Keeping the redirect pointed to the sea snail article saves the first group of readers one click, doesn't substantially change the effort required of those looking for the grape (assuming the hatnote stays), but completely cuts off the way for readers who might be looking for any of the people named "Abelone" (because they can't be mentioned in the hatnote). There's also another group: those who encounter the term but don't know what it means. Given how difficult it is to notice the difference between the two terms, we risk misleading readers here: imagine someone who's just bought "Abelone juice" and wants to look up what it is – they type "Abelone" and arrive at an article about sea snails (Eeew!). Favouring a misspelling in the choice of target has an additional drawback: it is baked into the text of the article (assuming a hatnote is added). Why should this article – a reader might want wonder – start with "Abelone redirects here", is that another spelling? Does "Abelone" mean the same as "Abalone"? – Uanfala (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chasselas and expand the hatnote accordingly. My usual inclination is to not treat something as a typo unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Linking to the relevant part of List of grape varieties could be difficult and confusing for readers. I've restored the list of synonyms—admittedly quite large—that was removed from Chasselas last year without discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chasselas per BDD. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Plantdrew: Would you by chance have any feedback on this nomination? Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The search for an appropriate alternative target seems unfinished.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chasselas for now. The given name probably merits primary topic status if anybody cares to write an article about the name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2019 (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.

Planet bob[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. Not mentioned in the target, and an obscure reference at best that helps nobody. ~ mazca talk 12:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be from a quote at the end of the movie. Not mentioned in the article, and probably shouldn't be. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this was an article with content "Planet Bob is a fictional planet from the movie Titan AE.", then "The New Earth", then getting redirected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2019 (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.

Students' Unions redirects for articles that don't mention them[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. Not mentioned in target, giving the reader a misleading impression there is useful information that is not there - with the only suggested rationale being that they may discourage non-notable articles. Other methods like create-protection can be used if that's a problem. ~ mazca talk 12:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target, not a particularly useful search term. I'm pretty sure we deleted a very similar redirect a week or two ago. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created these (and some of the others) to discourage the creation of a likely non-notable articles. I started making these after I saw several student union articles come up for AfD and failing on notability grounds. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional redirects of the same kind to this discussion signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. These should be tagged as {{R to article without mention}}. I suppose if there was a reason for that RCAT, this would be it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think the best use of that template is for its corresponding category to function as a maintenance category. It's rare for a redirect without mention to be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While we can use redirects to discourage creation of standalone articles, we also need to consider the impact to readers. These redirects communicate to them, "We have information on these student unions." We don't. Let's not mislead or confuse them. Furthermore, any reader who knows about the University of London Institute in Paris Students' Union, for example, will be able to search for the university's name anyway, so it's of little value to just redirect them where we don't discuss the student groups. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created with good intentions, but I don't like the idea of creating dubious redirects as a technique to discourage the creation of dubious articles. (Also, not convinced how effective it would be as a deterrent.) Colin M (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2019 (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/2019_June_25&oldid=1138582747"