Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2019.

STRONTIUM[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. There is an emerging consensus that WP:DIFFCAPS apply here. Deryck C. 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Strontium. Per MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS, the "code name" should not be in all caps in an article title, regardless of what sources use. wumbolo ^^^ 23:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Wumbolo in future, this is the right venue for discussing future target changes, preferably before unilaterally changing them to likely contested targets. Widefox; talk 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not retarget to strontium per WP:RCAPS as implausible/unnatural. While I agree that the code name should not use caps, I do not think it natural or likely to conduct a serious search for a chemical element in all caps—none of the others have such a redirect, and none need exist. ComplexRational (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 12:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS as code name all caps is common (See CIA cryptonym) and OK as a redirect e.g. ECHELON, PRISM (surveillance program), BULLRUN -> Bullrun (decryption program) (i.e. BULLRUN does not target the dab Bullrun). 1. not an article title but an alternative name, 2. It is not a trademark so MOS:TM is irrelevant. This is a valid bold alternative name used in the article (stylised) as all caps (in several places) so it is a case of fix it in the article first (and it doesn't appear broken). Saying that, secondary sources use both uppercase and lowercase so it isn't exclusively uppercase. The case for retargeting to the element is weak, where I agree with ComplexRational. Widefox; talk 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Widefox; talk 00:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS and Widefox above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 9 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.

Self-irony[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. A new soft redirect can be created if a Wiktionary entry for this title is created. Deryck C. 13:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term neither explained nor mentioned in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Self-explanatory. Instead of deletion, a solution in the spirit of wikipedia would be to add at least a dicdef. - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unclear what this redirect refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be a valid dictionary entry either (not in OED, but is in Urban Dictionary). Widefox; talk 22:04, 9 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.

International Leadership Association[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. Nabla (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a different organization than the ISOBL. http://www.ila-net.org/about/index.htm Not sure when the ISOBL was renamed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 7 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.

Courtauld Institute of Art Student's Union[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) 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Not sure what relevant information anyone searching for this term could find. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A student union is probably WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, and the redirect as it stands certainly does no one any good. Anyone searching this term knows about the Courtauld Institute of Art already. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 7 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.

Plastic smile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per criterion WP:G10, and creator blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly inappropriate, bordering on vandalism. Non-neutral redirects are allowed, but I am not aware of any unique association (or really any association at all) between "plastic smile" and Kerry. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 7 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.

List of countries and capitals with currency and language[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) 00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, the target doesn't include currency or language information. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I suppose those used to be fields in the table. All of these places have currency and language! --BDD (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was previously an article that was deleted at AfD back in 2015 and now recently recreated by 3hunna as a "plausible redirect of popular redlink" (see logs). Note that the outcome of that AfD was delete, not redirect or merge. It doesn't make sense to me as a redirect since per nom the target does not include the additional information. PC78 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For added context, while there are many incoming links to this redirect, they appear to be exclusively from User talk page warnings related to the previously-deleted article. While I didn't methodically check every single one, I did verify that it has no incoming links from the article space. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 7 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.

Karuthachan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 20#Karuthachan

Cambridge United L.F.C.[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 Cambridge United F.C.#Women's team. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this refers to the women's team (Ladies Football Club), which are usually given separate articles, and which is not mentioned at the target, I think this is best left as a redlink per WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 7 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.

Euroceticism[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) 00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could equally plausibly be a misspelling of Eurocentrism and should be deleted to avoid confusion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Recently created too. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 10 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.

Reno, Arizona[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 22#Reno, Arizona

Catholic Church and deism[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 procedural close—article converted to an article. Thank you, Hyperbolick! --BDD (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

I don't think this redirect should exist, per WP:R#DELETE criteria 5. Even though there's some relation between the concepts of deism and pandeism, they're distinct from each other and the former is far more notable (to the point where there have been proposals on the talk page to create Catholic Church and deism and redirect the existing Catholic Church and Pandeism to it). The latter seems to be a subtype of it (according to the current version of the deism article). Having the redirect this way seems confusing.

Catholic Church and deism should be a WP:REDLINK pending the creation of a distinct article. Currently no articles link to this redirect, except one of the proposals on a talk page (which is how I discovered it). - GretLomborg (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know if I could agree with a red link. Presently the link points out the page closest to answering what one would want to know of the subjects described. Think the question really is, do we move and reorganize the Catholic Church and Pandeism page to one on Deism, or do we split it out between two pages. Mildly prefer the second of these options. Shouldn’t take more than 15-20 minutes to do either. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist? Need more voices. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Started a seed Deism article under the redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 7 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.

Manterrupting[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. Not a slam-dunk consensus, but for now, this is honoring the AfD result from just earlier this year. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect arising from a merge, but none of the former content has survived at the target article. Reyk YO! 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I've restored the section, which was removed in april for an unclear reason. I support that Manterrupting should be an independent article. --Bageense(disc.) 12:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somehow. Contrary to the nominator's statement, some of the merged content has survived. During the 2016 American presidential debates, the term was applied to candidate Donald Trump who interrupted Hillary Clinton dozens of times during the first and second debates. appears in both, for example. Even the removal of the section from the current article would not suffice: you can't get rid of the content from that page's history (minus an inappropriate revdel), so we have to keep this page history. If it's a problem for Manterrupting to be a blue link, the solution is to move it somewhere, e.g. Talk:Interrupting/Manterrupting, and provide an attribution link to the new title. Alternately, you could provide a prominent link (e.g. in an edit summary) to a talk subpage or talk section in which you list those who contributed to the Manterrupting page. Since we can ignore people who merely participated in the deletion process, the list would only have four names: 49.195.85.117, 144.48.165.88, Alikehank, and Bageense. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 9 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.

Ahe Language language[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) 00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect likely made in error.--2001:DA8:201:3512:4875:D00C:A17F:A7BB (talk) 17:55, 7 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.

French Africa atrocities[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, as the target article has been deleted. (Also, the redirects were created by a block-evading editor.) If anyone thinks a new redirect under the same title to a different article is suitable, they are free to create one. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target of these redirects deals with only a subsection of French Africa; not included are the histories of French possessions in West Africa, North Africa, Madagascar, Djibouti (French Somaliland), and the Indian Ocean. signed, Rosguill talk 02:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The creation of a draft for the proposed "set index" may help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This is a pretty loaded title to try to create a set index article for, even if the target article shows us there's probably warrant for a proper article there. As a second choice, if we're going to retarget anywhere, we can do better than French colonial empire. Françafrique or France–Africa relations are both possibilities; the idea of French atrocities in Africa should, or could, be discussed there, though it isn't in any systematic way. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a good opportunity for WP:REDLINK deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 20 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.

Voter registration campaign[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 article created at Voter registration campaign, with the other two redirects retargeted there. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries also have voter registration and I would assume that their are voter registration campaigns in those countries as well Abote2 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate if other similar articles/sections of articles about voter registration campaigns/drives can be found. If not, I'm not aware of a need to delete the redirect and so would !vote to keep it. - PaulT+/C 16:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Same rationale even with the two additions, with the (obvious) exception that the other two should point to the third if a disambiguation page can be created. - PaulT+/C 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added two synonyms to the nomination. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Voter registration, where the concept is explained briefly. We have other nation-specific articles such as Voter registration in the Philippines, Electoral registration in the United Kingdom, etc., so we should use the non-US-centric target for this. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 7 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.

Eurasian race groups[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 23#Eurasian race groups

Ospreys[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. RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This title has redirected to Osprey for about seven years, but it was recently retargeted without discussion to the disambiguation page Osprey (disambiguation). I have reverted this undiscussed change, and bring the topic here to determine whether there is, in fact, a consensus to change the target. I note that many of the topics on the disambiguation page can not be pluralized (e.g. Osprey, Florida, Osprey Media, Osprey Publishing, Operation Osprey). bd2412 T 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per views [[1]] for titles of "Osprey" and per the long-term significance criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not seeing a reason why this redirect should not target the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per WP:PLURALPT. To compare, there are sports teams called the "Ospreys", but there also sports teams called the "Hawks", and that redirect targets Hawk, the article about the bird. Steel1943 (talk)|
    • Whether "Hawk" is the primary topic for "Hawks" is not relevant to whether "Osprey" (the bird) is the primary topic for "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to Osprey as an {{R from plural}} and primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to disambiguation. In common usage, the term "Ospreys" in the plural primarily refers to Ospreys (rugby union), one of the major rugby union teams in Wales and also one of the top-tier teams in Europe. I can see that there is a case for the osprey bird as well, though, so having a disambiguation page caters for both possibilities. I find this recent trend towards redirecting plurals to a common DICDEF where there is also a prominent entity known by the plural (e.g. Ravens) to be quite a worrying development. Redirects are meant to help readers get to the page they're looking for, not just satisfy WP:Wikilawyering. Having Ospreys redirect to Osprey condemns to the rugby fans to having to make two clicks to get to their team.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first page of Google Books results has eight books on the bird, one on the military aircraft, and one work of fiction. None on the rugby team. In terms of historical significance, the earliest reference I can find to ospreys (in the plural) dates back to 1658. The rugby team apparently came into existence in 2003. According to this NGram, that did not seem to have had much impact on the use of the word. bd2412 T 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the plural titles (like Ravens) started out as redirects to the singular and are then later edited to create a DAB page or are pointed elsewhere so its not a recent trend. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambig the results for this seem to be highly variable by geographic location and (likely) previous searches. My first 40 results from a plain google search are: Welsh rugby team 32 hits (first result #1), bird 13 hits (first result #17), Cambridge University organisation 2 hits (first hit #34), Scottish rugby ream 1 hit (#37), note all of the first page is for the ruby team. For books of the first 30 26 were about the bird, but #4 was about the family of a Lord Osprey, #5 was about an aircraft type, #10 was about a (possibly fictional) place and #30 was about a (probably fictional) gang. 30 of 30 news hits are about the Welsh rugby team, 12 of 20 images are about the bird (but the first two are related to the rugby team). All in all this points to there being no universal primary topic for the plural. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any word on historical significance? bd2412 T 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes: it's irrelevant. What matters is what people are most likely to be looking for now, and from the evidence available to us that is about equally likely to be the bird and the Welsh rugby team, so the disambiguation page is the best place to target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps it is irrelevant to your opinion, but it is very relevant to policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), which states: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". If you disagree with the policy, make a proposal to change the policy. bd2412 T 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do disagree that that is relevant to the redirect we are discussing here. We are concerned solely what most people are currently looking for when they search using the term "Ospreys" and/or create of follow links to Ospreys. The evidence clearly shows that there is currently no universal primary topic for this term. I do not see how it is possible to determine whether a top-flight sports team or a bird have greater notability or educational value within the confines of NPOV, given they are completely distinct topics and of comparable prominence in globally averaged search results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also note that you are selectively quoting from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy, mentioning only the second bullet point of the two methods described as commonly used, the first being: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.. The page also states In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. (emphasis mine). This clearly shows that the policy does not regard long-term significance as of greater importance than current usage, and that where the two conflict there is not always a single primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well what is this, then? The Ospreys rugby team logo isn't a picture of a person playing rugby. Rather, it looks like a bird, as if the name of the team is intended to invoke the bird known by that name. This isn't a case like Philadelphia Phillies or the Houston Texans, where the team name is merely intended to evoke the location. The logo practically says, "we're the Ospreys - you know, like the bird". bd2412 T 18:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict)The stats that I provided show that the bird gets over 10x the views as the rugby union team however we don't know how many people would use the singular v plural. I'd note that I'd never heard of the team even though I'm in Great Britain. Indeed the bird is clearly primary by PT#2 but a DAB page might work better since readers could easily find what they want but that wasn't done with Cairns which remains an article about the Australian city despite the plural of Cairn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed, I'm arguing the dab page is better because the evidence shows that the rugby team and bird are equally likely to be searched. Why is the logo of the rugby team at all relevant here? What the primary topic for anything other than "Ospreys" is is definitely not relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if you want a counterexample Seahawk (dab) vs Seahawks (NFL team), even though their logo depicts the bird). Page views will obviously show the bird's article as getting more views as that's (a) the clear primary topic for "Osprey" (singular) and also the current target of the plural redirect, so everyone who wants any other meaning goes via that page first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Seahawk is a dab because there is no specific kind of bird known as a seahawk. It would be a dab if no sports teams existed with the name. By contrast, Hawks, Eagles, Crows, Penguins, Owls, Falcons, and Bluejays are specific kinds of birds (species or family), and all are plural primary topic redirects despite the existence of notable sports teams bearing those names. The same with Lions, Tigers, Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Sharks, even Cavaliers. With respect to other Welsh rugby union teams, by the way Dragons redirects to Dragon (the fictional creature can't be more notable than a real kind of bird), and Warriors redirects to Warrior, despite there being teams by these names. bd2412 T 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Whether other singular things are or are not the primary topic for their plural is still irrelevant, regardless of whether you give 1 or 100 examples of them. Literally the only thing that is relevant is what people are looking for when they use the term "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Of course you have to hold titles that conform to historical significance irrelevant if you want to avoid that rule. I'll make you a deal. If you can gain consensus that Dragons should be retargeted to Dragon (disambiguation) due to the existence of Dragons (rugby union), then I will reverse my position on the redirect at issue here. bd2412 T 21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "Dragons", being an example of something that is not "Ospreys", is still irrelevant to what the primary topic for "Ospreys" is. Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I see where you are confused as to the relevance of policy here. As you have requested, I have re-read WP:WAX, and found that it is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Since this is not a deletion discussion, consistency with the presentation of other topics in the encyclopedia is highly relevant. bd2412 T 16:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If consistency with the presentation of other topics in the encyclopaedia was a relevant consideration then it would be mentioned in at least one policy or guideline regarding redirects and/or primary topics (and probably several of them) and you would have mentioned it before now. Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles begins Wikipedia:Article titles states as its fifth naming criterion, after recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. In the "Relationship between consistency and other considerations" section it notes Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination. at "Inconsistency resulting from primary topic determinations" it states f a topic is found to be the primary topic for a title (or if a title is found to have no primary topic), then a second topic that happens to share that title can not use that title, even if this would enable the second topic to be more consistent with other articles in its field.. All this shows that what (if anything) the primary topic for the term "Ospreys" is more significant than what other articles about topics related to one of several meanings are titled, and what other terms do. The evidence presented (which you've not attempted to refute) shows that there is no global primary topic for the search term "Ospreys" and so it should redirect to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recently disambiguated the incoming links to Ospreys. 70% were about the rugby club; 30% about the bird. I've also just fixed the articles which claimed that the game is played by actual dragons. Certes (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambig. The Osprey article is a mess. Until very recently, Pandion haliaetus was the only living species recognized in the genus Pandion (bird). Living Australian birds have recently been treated as a different species, Pandion cristatus/Eastern osprey. If Wikipedia is going to follow the ornithological sources that recognize two species of osprey (which is how the relevant article are currently structured, but not titled), osprey should be the title of (or a redirect to) the article now at Pandion (bird). If Pandion includes multiple living species, Ospreys might be appropriately targeted there. Ospreys should not target the species Pandion haliaetus if an additional species in the genus is recognized. People searching for ospreys (plural)are more likely to be looking for a sports team, not multiple species in the genus Pandion or multiple individuals of Pandion haliaetus (as broadly construed). Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as there's an article about birds called osprey, this is an obvious {{R from plural}} WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we do eventually have an article about the bird that covers multiple species, I assume it will be at Osprey too. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do already have an article about the bird genus that covers multiple species of osprey: Pandion (bird). -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suppose I'd prefer a retarget to Pandion (bird), though it might also appropriate for "Ospreys" to be the title there. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A plural form should generally redirect to the singular, not something else. It's fine to make an exception when the plural has a different connotation (e.g. God covers the monotheistic concept, while Gods goes to deity, which includes polytheism), or when the plural has a specific normal meaning (e.g. Queen is a disambiguation page covering female monarchs and a bunch of other things, while Queens is a part of New York City), but that's not apparently the case here. The "retarget to disambiguation" voters would do better to propose moving the existing page on the bird, particularly as Google tests are vulnerable to recentism. Much of the English-speaking world has never heard of a Welsh rugby union team by this name. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 9 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.

Bill King(rugby league player)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. kingboyk (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was leftover from a page move in 2007. I don't think that there's any reason for it to exist. Leschnei (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete malformed redirect per nom, past precedent, WP:COSTLY and WP:G6. This is uncontroversial housekeeping, there are no incoming links and since the title was fixed within 24 hours of the article being created, I don't think there's any reason to suppose that linkrot is a valid concern. PC78 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PC78's spot-on analysis. bd2412 T 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB, considering Bill King (rugby league player) exists and targets the same location as this nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 8 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_7&oldid=903117108"