Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2019.

40 nm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 29#40 nm

Hartung Hirschfeld[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 29#Hartung Hirschfeld

Seventy-six[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 76. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't envision any good reason for these two titles going to different places. Where should they go: the number or the disambiguation page? Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to 76 since the number apparently isn't the primary topic. PC78 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page (76), which includes three places named "Seventy-Six". Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target/retarget both to the DAB page 76. As nom says, no reason to have everyday variant spellings pointing in different directions. The DAB page is the easiest place to find bad links (which is why I'm here, RFD requests involving DAB pages show up in one of User:DPL bot's error reports). Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 18 May 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.

Navboxes[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. MBisanz talk 02:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden inter-namespace link – that's not the way we connect things here. Hildeoc (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a better way for a user to be redirected to the navigation template.Fleets (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect (WP:XNR). Article to Wikipeda: XNRs are in most cases only good redirects if the target is something that needs to be accessible to those who haven't learned about namespaces yet and are not ambiguous with an encyclopaedic term. The first 20 hits on google are all related to wikis, with Wikimedia sites (including the redirect target) the most prominent among them, so this is not a term that has another use, but equally it's very unlikely that anyone will be searching using this jargon term before they know about different namespaces, so Wikipedia:Navboxes (which leads to the same target) is all that is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 19 May 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.

Centre (région française)[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) B dash (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Search terms Centre (French region) and Centre Region, France are already covered. — JFG talk 20:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, there is a clear affinity between a region of France and the French language so RFOREIGN actually rates this as a good redirect on that aspect. However in this case the disambiguator is French as well as the main part and RFOREIGN gives no guidance either way on that, so we need to consider this on its individual merits. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as it's correct, there is affinity and this has existed as a redirect to what has evolved into the current target since 2005. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Page creator here. Thank you for your interest in a disambiguation page that I have created 15 (!) years ago. As far as I can remember, the main reason for creating this dab page was that a number of France related articles, especially those with lists of places, were at that time cut-and-pasted from the French wiki into the English one. "Centre (région française)" was either the name of the French article or a popular name for it at the time, and creating a redirect page was easier than changing all the links in the imported [parts of] articles. Now the name of the French administrative region has changed from "Centre" to "Centre-Val de Loire" and the redirect is essentially a living wikifossil. Feel free to delete it if it makes some contributors feel better. Olivier (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't G7 delete it, since Thryduulf and I want it to be kept; let's just wait for the discussion to conclude. As far as the name, see Regions of France#Reform and mergers of regions. When Parliament significantly changed the country's regional divisions a few years ago, the region known as "Centre" was left intact, but it changed its name to "Centre-Val de Loire". Since it's merely the old name for an extant subject, and since it's the French name for a place in France, I say keep. It's like lots of other local-name-for-former-place redirects, like Kurfürstentum Sachsen or Karjalais-suomalainen sosialistinen neuvostotasavalta. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 19 May 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.

XJet[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 X-Jet (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any evidence that the target subject is or ever was named or nicknamed "XJet". In fact, "XJet" seems to be a completely separate airline company (https://xjet.com/). For this reason, I propose that this redirect either match the target of X-Jet or target it or weak delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do the same as with X-Jet per my comment on that nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Here's link to the aforementioned discussion in case this gets relisted: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#X-Jet. (I nominated them separately due to proposing different actions be done with them, and was trying to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Thryduulf. I can't envision a situation in which these should go to different places; if we had an article about the airline, X-Jet would do well to come here (with a hatnote to Williams), since it's a plausible modification of the article's title. Since there is no article, and since "X-Jet" appears to be the title of two existing concepts, we can redirect this to whatever we do with the other. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Thryduulf. Retarget to new disambiguation page X-Jet and remove hatnote at Williams X-Jet. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to X-Jet as that will be a disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 21 May 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.

X-Jet[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. @Shhhnotsoloud: You said you had a draft ready, please put that on the disambiguation page. Edit: Nevermind, it's there already. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@InvalidOS: there is no primary topic so the disambiguation page needs to be at the base name X-Jet with X-Jet (disambiguation) redirecting to it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the pageviews between Williams X-Jet and Blackbird (comics), it is unclear which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, the topic at Blackbird (comics) seems to have a longer-lasting notability and has the potential to continue to be notable for years. So, I'm torn between converting X-Jet into a disambiguation page and weak retarget to Blackbird (comics). Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate along with with Xjet. It's not clear from sources, but I think Xjet might have been a nickname for Expressjet. In addition to the two targets listed by the nominator List of airline codes (X) expects this to be an Austrian airline (which is different to the American Expressjet). Google also tells me that there is a 3D-printing/additive manufacturing company that might be notable, a type of water hose/pressure washer (or possibly an attachment for one) that I don't really know where to start with for checking notability. Sources for most uses seem to use Xjet and X-Jet (in a variety of capitalisations) seemingly interchangeably so whatever happens they should point to the same target. I'll leave a note for the Airlines project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've provided a draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as shown. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:48, 21 May 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.

Attempted escapes from Alcatraz[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 Alcatraz escape attempts. It doesn't need us mulling it over for a whole week to see that this is the obvious correct outcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leads to a no more existing section. Dead redirect. Hildeoc (talk) 18:50, 17 May 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.

Nipesh DHAKA[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) B dash (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect page for a non-notable author of one song. Redirects to said song. Has enabled (probably) someone with conflict of interest to repeatedly change/mention said author's name in all related pages with the surname in all caps (which I assume is contrary to wikipedia guidelines, since I have seen more experienced editors reverting those edits to proper casing). I would have gone for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure. So, any feedback appreciated. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Also, I couldn't find secondary sources naming him in all caps. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:28, 17 May 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.

Castle (montsoreau)[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. No comment as to whether other redirect titles should exist ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional disambiguations that are unlikely search terms. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both terms are perfectly matching the article. They are very likely search terms as the Château de X in french is first a Chateau or Castle sometimes both and X comes after. --Philippe49730 (talk) 07:01, 3 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) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Proper nouns should be disambiguated by common nouns/descriptors, not the other way around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the issue? The issue is that the disambiguator is used incorrectly. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that this particular castle or chateau goes by the singular name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This takes the order of term + disambiguator backwards: a generic name in parentheses is used to disambiguate a proper term, not the other way round. An appropriate redirect of this form would be Montsoreau (castle). – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Castle (montsoreau) to montsoreau (Castle), Chateau (montsoreau) to montsoreau (Chateau), Castle (monsoreau) to monsoreau (Castle), Chateau (monsoreau) to monsoreau (Chateau) seems to be both consensual and more accurate solution as these terms are perfectly matching the article. --Philippe49730 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 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.

Devil Take The Hindmost[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. There's no need to relist this, everyone is in agreement. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the song in the target musical is the primary topic of the phrase, which appears to have a number of other senses (including other songs; see Clockwork (Angelus Apatrida album), The Best of Allan Holdsworth: Against the Clock) already missing from the hatnote. I would disambiguate this term. bd2412 T 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nom. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect but it could do with cleaning up. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per nom. Lots of other possible links! - PaulT+/C 03:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:54, 17 May 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.

Femi Oluwole[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) InvalidOS (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no mention of the person in question in the target article. RaviC (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is mentioned once in the "History" section as a founding member, and twice in the infobox. Seems like a perfectly valid redirect to me. PC78 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect barely makes any sense. Unless we have significant coverage about the individual we can go for an article instead but that appears to be lacking. 103.113.0.182 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly mentioned (if briefly) at the target; deletion makes no sense. As a side note for what it's worth I went to high school with someone with the same name, but almost certainly a different person. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's mentioned a lot more times now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 18 May 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.

Missing or misplaced brackets (from history merge etc.)[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 all. Consensus is clearly in favour of deletion, this did not need relisting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per below, I kept these separate since they are all left over from history merges and cut & paste repairs, however the remaining page history is trivial so this should be a simple case of housekeeping. Delete all per WP:RDAB and concensus across multiple recent discussions (most recently on April 20), the missing or misplaced brackets make these unlikely search terms and none are linked from mainspace. PC78 (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All per nom. Simply not useful. The ones I've checked have zero page views before the nomination (and some still show zero even after the nom) Meters (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:47, 17 May 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.

Priest (Catholic Chruch)[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. MBisanz talk 02:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of the spelling error and the parenthetical make this a pretty implausible typo. Reyk YO! 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only because of the implausible typo. The correctly spelled Priest (Catholic Church) is a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP#4. The redirect gets plenty of traffic and has been around since 2008. Also, for those of you who didn't even see the typo at first glance (because I didn't) "Chruch"!="Church". The typo is plenty subtle enough to be plausible. - PaulT+/C 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 64 pageviews in the last year (to a target that received 110,000 pageviews over the same timeframe) is definitely not "plenty of traffic". -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Those pageviews show that the page is useful to someone and, according to WP:R#KEEP#5: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility., it should therefore be kept. The fact that the targeted page gets many more pageviews doesn't change the fact that many other people get utility out of the redirect. - PaulT+/C 14:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone comes to this discussion from using the redirect and says so, then they are able to use the "someone finds this redirect useful" argument. Otherwise it's just hypothetical. It's important to frame pageviews as a ratio of its target because that removes the obscureness aspect to it. Some topics are so obscure that they don't receive many page views anyway, but not this one. Not all pageviews come from someone actively typing in "Priest (Catholic Chruch)" and finding the target that way. Typing in "Priest (C" in the search bar gives this redirect as one of the options, for example. Other pageviews may come from redirect maintainers and those stumbling upon it randomly (perhaps even via Special:RandomRedirect). Either way, I firmly believe anyone trying to find the target would be able to do so just as easily (if not more easily in at least one case) without this specific redirect existing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the proportionality argument for pageviews falls flat for redirects that are clearly erroneous: they never have views in any kind of correlation to the target, because they're errors. I don't know what stats you guys are looking at but I see that it had 12 hits in the 90 days before the nomination. That's not enough to be worth keeping in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I'm not swayed by search-related arguments because someone can enter the URL without using search. That's what I always do, for example. However, I'm convinced by Tavix's comment that misclicks are likely responsible for many hits. Moreover, if you type the whole phrase into the URL and get a nonexistent title, you're likely to expect that you made a typo (even before you see the deletion log entry that references this discussion), and "Chruch" should stand out rather quickly, so you'll fix it and end up at the right article. So in other words, not particularly useful for either method of searching. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 19 May 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.

Judas-Lady Gaga[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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, since article with the appropriate title already exists. CycloneYoris talk! 02:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:43, 17 May 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.

Doctor Bobert[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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very uncommon variant of the name. So uncommon, in fact, that the page Bobert goes to the only subject with the name mentioned on Wikipedia, a fictional character. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete results on google seem to be either derived from Wikipedia or very old newspapers (presumably OCR errors). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:43, 17 May 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.

Fofty[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) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Fofty" doesn't appear a single time in 50 Cent, so it makes no sense. Instead, it should be a redirect to 50 (number) as a potential typo of Fifty (which is a redirect there) DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to 50 (number) might "make sense", as you put it, to anyone who had not cracked a single source of popular media over the last week. At this moment, Googling for "Fofty" (in quotes) yields "About 982,000 results". Maybe some other brave Wikipedian will one day track down one of those 982,000 hits and update 50 Cent accordingly? Right now, Fofty has 21 pageviews. These were not typos, so let's serve our audience. --NoApostropheInIts (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak retarget to Nik Richie as a neologism that Richie is going to trademark. [1] It's related to some feud said between 50 Cent and Randall Emmett but that feud was not elaborated upon in the 50 Cent article. Delete if that doesn't even show up on Richie's article in any significance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) updated 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's changed in the Richie article to cover this so recommending delete now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 21 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) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 50 (number) with {{R avoided double redirect|fifty}} added. Whatever the term means, it isn't mentioned at any of the above articles. Until there is an actual explanation for it (that is relevant enough to actually be retained at the article(s) in question), there is no reason for it to link there. - PaulT+/C 03:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a typo for "fifty": read this: [2]. If it's not worthy of mention in 50 Cent then delete it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that there is an actual meaning for the term, but it is not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia currently and it is a valid typo for "fifty" and should not be deleted. See WP:R#KEEP#2. - PaulT+/C 16:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Actually, after reading that article a typo for "fifty" is exactly what the term is. smh - PaulT+/C 16:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I take the point, but we don't create redirects for likely typos (we don't have Fufty) so we don't need this one, especially if there's ambiguity in its meaning (WP:R#DELETE#2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects for typos happen often. See {{r from typo}}. - PaulT+/C 01:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a common typo though or alias like Fourty / Forty. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty common to me. On a QWERTY keyboard "i" and "o" are right next to each other. Seems like an easy mistake to make when typing quickly, especially on a touchscreen keyboard. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because someone meant to type "fifty" to 50 Cent but it came out as "fofty" on their iPhone keyboard. - PaulT+/C 23:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something about it is added to the 50 Cent article to show that it means him. As for typos, this is not necessarily a typo for "fifty"; it could equally well be a type for "forty". (I and O are next to each other on the keyboard, but so are R and F.) The typo is ambiguous and thus should not be redirected to either number. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was waiting for someone to make that connection (re: forty/fofty/fifty r•f/o•i). There is potential for confusion, but that doesn't mean one isn't more likely than the other. The main argument for redirecting to 50 instead of 40 is the actual provenance of the 'word'. Another, less obvious point is that the typo is more likely to happen while trying to type "fifty" than "forty". Here is why. Typos are less likely to happen with letters in the home row and two different rows ("F" is in the home row "R" is not). Typos are more likely to happen among letters right next to each other in the same non-home row (like "O" and "I" are). If you are aiming for "R" and your fingers "know" they need to move up (after having just typed "F"), you will be less likely to hit "F" again than the potential ambiguity between "I" and "O" being right next to each other. Admittedly, this is a very obscure, opinionated (though I would argue not dogmatic) point and doesn't change the fact that a typo with "forty" can also turn into "fofty", but I do think one typo is more likely than the other. Anyway, just wanted to make the point in case someone brought up the r•f/o•i ambiguity. I will not belabor it. - PaulT+/C 22:14, 25 May 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.

Acadêmicos de São Jorge[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. None of these are tagged, which might give me pause, and there's been no additional input. That being said, there's a complicated history of disruption for each of these, this bulk nomination has been unopposed for nearly two weeks, and there's some related context at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_15#Samba_school_carnavalescos_and_singers. I'll bring any back if people want 'em (soft-delete-ish) but for now, let's be done with this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of redirects (117)

One more group of Brazilian Carnival related redirects. Most of these redirect to specific sections, for either the São Paulo style or Espírito Santo style. However, those sections are each just a couple paragraphs of unsourced content, certainly not enough to substantiate all these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 17 May 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.

History of gender feminism[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 Gender feminism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target no longer exists, current target is ambiguous, and I have no idea where to redirect to. Paradoctor (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No incoming mainspace links, most common usage is by Christina Hoff Sommers – not a historian of feminism – therefore no real-world topic corresponds to the title. Ambiguity of gender feminism makes appropriate re-targeting a guessing game. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somers's neologism does not an -ism make. I see no reference to Somers in the first 50 results at Google Scholar for "gender feminism". In fact, there are no references to "gender feminism", either. All results are accidental colocations such as Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods, Theory on gender: feminism on theory, or Gender, feminism and the state: an overview. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page gender feminism. This is a perfectly acceptable redirect target to aid in possible searches. - PaulT+/C 10:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Searches of what? There is no content about "history of gender feminism" on Wikipedia. That's the best information we have on this topic. Redirecting makes it only harder for the user to determine that. Paradoctor (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is content about the "history of gender feminism" present in two of the three articles listed at gender feminism - difference feminism#History and Who Stole Feminism?#Summary (In her view, gender feminism began to develop in the middle of the 1960s...). The disambiguation page is an appropriate target. - PaulT+/C 15:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this a little more closely, perhaps a proper article can be created from some of the material in the now-merged/deleted "Background" section at gender feminism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_feminism&oldid=892065731 and keep a link to the disambiguation page. It would be limited to the history of the term itself, based on those sources listed in that section. - PaulT+/C 15:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Psantora's findings came late to this discussion, relisting to allow time to discuss.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Psantora. "History of gender feminism" is ambiguous in the same way as "gender feminism" is, so it makes sense to point to the same dab page. There are, in general, differences between "history of X" and "X", but these do not apply here. Took me a bit to wrap my head about that. Paradoctor (talk) 17:26, 17 May 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.

Barrington River (Nova Scotia)[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, now a stub article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry or information. If the river exists, it may deserve an article; but this redirect is useless. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've oveerwritten the redirect with a very stubby article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 17 May 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_May_17&oldid=1138582838"