Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 22

February 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2020.

Adventure comics[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The result of the discussion was speedy keep/nomination withdrawn. By Wilkinswontkins per this edit diff. Closing for them. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure comics → Adventure Comics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect for Adventure comics was initially pointing to the article Adventure fiction, instead of the article for Adventure Comics, one of the most famous series in comics history. Anyone searching for the Adventure Comics article in all lowercase was getting redirected to the Adventure fiction article instead. I changed the redirect to go to the correct article for now, but the redirect page should be removed entirely. Wilkinswontkins (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Thank you to Wilkinswontkins for that good retarget to Adventure Comics as that is a much better target. Otherwise, on what basis should it be deleted? Is it ambiguous in some way? Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not ambiguous, it's just redundant. Removing the redirect page would take you directly to Adventure Comics, rather than needing to go through an unnecessary redirect page.Wilkinswontkins (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Wilkinswontkins, thanks for clarifying. Redundancy, on its own, isn't really a reason for deletion, though. Yes, many web browsers, or even MediaWiki, will adjust for casing in some cases; however, that's usually only the case of the initial character. Note, too, that deletion doesn't actually save disk space; it increases it. The redirect's history just becomes suppressed from editors who don't hold administrator permissions. So, deleting to get rid of redundancy isn't really a reason for deletion on its own; it's got to be accompanied with other rationales, like ambiguity, potential confusion, and no or minimal usage. For the preceding twelve months, to yesterday, Adventure comics, as the subject redirect, had 365 pageviews. That's not insignificant. In fact, a potential case could be made for move-ing Adventure Comics to Adventure comics over the redirect, leaving Adventure Comics as a trailing redirect with {{R from other capitalization}} as an rcat, on Manual of Style grounds, though I haven't looked into that further yet.^{Amended; nevermind above the move; it's the name of a comic book series} --Doug Mehus T·C 17:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Compare War and peace as one example of many. Narky Blert (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, going through the browser searchbar is capitalisation-dependent. {{R from miscapitalisation}} and {{R unprintworthy}} are both appropriate here. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus, Narky Blert, and J947: Fair enough. I didn't realize that a redirect like that was needed for technical reasons. I see now that "star wars" has a redirect to Star Wars, for example. In that case, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Wilkinswontkins (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilkinswontkins: No worries at all—I'm a big believer in learning by trial & error, in one's personal and work lives. Doug Mehus T·C 21:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilkinswontkins: No worries, it never hurts to ask. A printed copy of WP:MOS could be used to protect a military bunker. (Good find and good retarget, BTW.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to the close by seconds. :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:23, 22 February 2020 (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.

J.D (Resident Evil)[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) 19:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J.D (Resident Evil) → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I believe this is referring to a film character that isn't mentioned in Wikipedia. I think there is also another character named "JD" who appears in one of the games. Neither of them are notable enough to justify a redirect and the ambiguity would only confuse a potential reader. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a bare mention in Resident Evil (film) (as J.D. Salinas). At least one fansite calls him "J.D.". However, this redirect is misspelt (it's missing a fullstop), and the possible target gives nothing more than the name of the actor. Narky Blert (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Narky and nom, Xezbeth, but mainly because we don't need redirects for minor fictional characters, particularly those with multiple typos, and disambiguation qualifiers. It's simply too hard to fathom how this is useful. Doug Mehus T·C 16:22, 22 February 2020 (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.

Paquistan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 29#Paquistan

Dario Rosso[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) 19:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Rosso → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Jessica Trevor → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Murphy Seeker → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Rodrigo Juan Raval → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tyrell Patrick → List of Resident Evil characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Minor fictional characters that are not covered in Wikipedia. Dario Rosso has a passing mention in a voice actor article which does not justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Dario Rosso appears in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, but is not mentioned in our article. Jessica Trevor is mentioned in one fansite; same for Murphy Seeker, link; Rodrigo Juan Raval, link; and Tyrell Patrick link. They are all seriously minor characters. Narky Blert (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2020 (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 Weeping Woman (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 retarget to La Llorona (2019 film). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeping Woman (film) → Weeping Woman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to La Llorona (2019 film), which is the only extant article about a film known as The Weeping Woman. The Curse of La Llorona is also known as The Curse of the Weeping Woman, but not as The Weeping Woman, making it inappropriate to list on the DAB page Weeping Woman, per WP:PARTIAL.

The Curse of La Llorona is indeed a much more popular 2019 film that has "La Llorona" (or "the Weeping Woman") in its title than La Llorona, but the hatnote at La Llorona (2019 film) already helps readers looking for the article about it—including those who were redirected there via The Weeping Woman (film) if retargeted. (Pinging @Nnadigoodluck, Alex 21, and Lithopsian:) Nardog (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. I've cleaned up the disambiguation pages to move The Curse of... to See also. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Only one film with that title as an AKA, so no contest. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:60AD:1F93:BEBF:91AB (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (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.

Warnstorfia exannulata[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 Closed. Article created. Most of this discussion is pretty much moot now. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warnstorfia exannulata → List of Canadian plants by family A#Amblystegiaceae (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, no appropriate target. This moss species is included in the family Amblystegiaceae in some classifications and Campyliaceae in others. Wikipedia's moss classification needs an overhaul, and more articles need to be written, but redirecting a species to a family isn't appropriate. Plantdrew (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W. exannulata is mentioned in List of club-mosses and mosses of Montana and List of the mosses of Britain and Ireland, but neither would be a suitable target. sv:Warnstorfia exannulata exists in Swedish and other WPs, but we have no article even on the genus, Warnstorfia, to which it belongs; or I would have suggested retargetting there. The only mention of Warnstorfia in English WP is in Carl Friedrich Warnstorf, after whom it was named.

German (de:Warnstorfia) and Spanish (es:Warnstorfia) WPs place this moss in family de:Calliergonaceae but Swedish (sv:Fattigkrokmossor) in Amblystegiaceae. There is what looks like WP:RS support for both, e.g. Calliergonaceae and Amblystegiaceae. The assignment looks uncertain.

An alternative to deletion would be to write Warnstorfia, if anyone feels up to it, and retarget to that. Narky Blert (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft retarget to species:Warnstorfia exannulata. This is a case where cross-project targeting should be noncontroversial due to similarities in scope. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I strongly oppose retargetting to species:Warnstorfia exannulata. Soft redirects like that delude readers into thinking that an article exists in English WP when it doesn't. Species are inherently notable, so that articles about them are always justified. (Although IMO in many cases, so little can be said about a species that the better solution is to incorporate the information about it into the article about the genus.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Warnstorfia exannulata per J947 and per policy #1, policy #2, and, the most important one, policy #3. The soft redirect template is such that, when an article is warranted, it can easily be created with Article Wizard and proceed to Articles for Creation. Brilliant, J947. I'll add soft redirect below the current target. Moreover, we have highly knowledgeable editors at Wikispecies, including some regulars here at RfD. Doug Mehus T·C 21:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, IMO, soft redirects are only acceptable when it is clear that an article in English WP would not survive. That is not the case here. An article about Warnstorfia exannulata would sail through WP:GNG. Furthermore, a redirect would disguise the problem that needed article Warnstorfia does not exist. Narky Blert (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The {{Wikispecies redirect}} template even encourages article creation. So anyone landing at that page could easily create the page. Moreover, the redlink article assumes, not necessarily correctly, that people create articles only or largely because of redlinks. Not necessarily true. Subject matter experts create articles on topics which interest them, as time allows. Directing to Wikispecies until such time allows is perfectly reasonable, as Wikispecies is no more, and no less, authoritative of a source as English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See established consensus on soft redirects at wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_144#RfC:_Cross-wiki_redirects_to_Wiktionary. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirects to Wiktionary. I don't see any arguments there (which are largely WP:NOTDICT) applicable to species articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert and Hyperik: We have {{Wikispecies redirect}} specifically for this purpose, and it's clearly within the scope of WP:SISP and WP:SOFTREDIRECT. Note, too, at Category:Redirects to Wikispecies, we even have a soft redirect to John S. Dugdale, presumably, because he's not notable for English Wikipedia. Since this moss may not be notable on English Wikipedia, there's the same logic, no? Doug Mehus T·C 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with John S. Dugdale, but the moss is definitely is notable (as are all other species of mosses) and could/should have its own article on the English WP. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I was particularly struck by Deryck Chan's argument in the TfD discussion you linked to below, where he wrote: "Keep if the relevant transclusion is kept; weak keep if not. I disagree with the nominator's rationale that this template 'disguises' the fact that we have no article. I think it is a clear admission that we have no article and have decided to send our reader somewhere more useful. It is well in line with the spirit of wi that we have an equivalent redirect for topics covered by Species that we don't." (emphasis added) I couldn't agree more! Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An argument I disagreed with in 2017 and still do. A bluelink to Wikispecies suggests that John S. Dugdale is not notable. I disagree, I think he may be: 1, 2, and other search results. Taxonomists only tend to get stuff written specifically about them in obituaries. While his name is a soft bluelink to Wikispecies, no-one is likely to think of writing his biography. Narky Blert (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Are you suggesting we create soft redirects for the thousands of (notable) taxa that are on Wikispecies but don't yet have Wikipedia articles? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperik: My preference would be for non-notable Wikispecies articles, but I see no reason to limit it to non-notable subjects, either. The Wikispecies redirect template is such that, should the subject be notable, one simply need only on the Article Wizard link to write an English Wikipedia article. As well, within related articles, we can link to that soft redirect so that when an article is written, it's not an orphan, and has appropriate inlinks already in place. Doug Mehus T·C 03:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many thousands of missing articles for species and other taxa that are present at Wikispecies and other wikis but we should not be creating soft redirects to them. I often scan redlinks to create articles of species missing on Wikipedia, so I can't recommend retargeting it to a parent taxon article either (were one for the genus to exist, for example). I don't understand what type of article the template documentation is referring to ("This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikispecies and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form"), but this topic clearly doesn't qualify as it would make a fine encyclopedia article. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had totally forgotten that I had nominated Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 4#Template:Wikispecies redirect at WP:TFD. As I said in 2017, I think it's a really bad idea: all species are inherently notable and pass WP:GNG; "likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form" is nonsense. Invalid names should be redirected to the valid name (or to a DAB page, if there is more than one). Soft redirects to other WPs are also useless; {{ill}} should be used instead. That template alerts editors that an article is missing but available somewhere in WP space, and goes blue if it is written in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Wow, what a coincidence! I didn't know you played at TfD. It's interesting how many RfD regulars were in that TfD discussion—you, Plantdrew, Thryduulf, Deryck Chan, and Tavix! ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 00:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think the combined effect of this RfD and this TfD was that we really don't know whether redlinking or soft-redirecting encourages or discourages article creation. So, whatever. It appears that the emerging consensus here is that ideally someone should go ahead and write a Warnstorfia article, but I'm not sure who's ready to take up the task. @Dmehus: So many RfD regulars participated in that TfD because those two discussions were cross-posted and the general sentiment was that they needed to be solved at the same time, so the two crowds joined forces! In the end both were closed as "no consensus"; not ideal, but better than having them endorse opposite conclusions. Deryck C. 16:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Input invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Warnstorfia exannulata. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (1) Such redirects disguise the fact that an article does not exist, especially when working on the taxon at the next rank up, which will almost always have a list of subordinate taxa. (2) Taxonomy, including whether or not a particular taxon is accepted, is a matter of opinion, not fact. While article text must reflect varied opinions, article titles and taxoboxes have to follow one consistent view, to avoid duplications and gaps. There's no reason why different wikis should use the same classification, and indeed they don't. Redirecting across wikis in the case of taxa is a recipe for muddle and confusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Comment - Warnstorfia has now been created. Please consider it in your discussion. Also note the existence of the {{R plant with possibilities}} template. --awkwafaba (📥) 04:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; as mentioned above, it has no effect on my view that such an accepted taxon redirect should be deleted rather than pointed toward some other target, whether that be the parent taxon or elsewhere like Wikispecies. See also discussion for the redirect Xylocopa appendiculata, which was, along with the one below it, deleted ("Species names can redirect to their genus...but this isn't going to be very helpful. Better to leave it red to encourage creation.") and the discussion for the redirect Exophthalmus vittatus, also deleted ("Better to have a red link...I'd be perfectly happy to see all such species to genus redirects deleted."). —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 05:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So I just created the article. Ya'll spent way more time and effort fighting when you could have just done it. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's better to let a conversation run its course than to cut it short. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:53, 25 February 2020 (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.

Mark Wahlberg (disambiguation)[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) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wahlberg (disambiguation) → Wahlberg (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect (with no incoming links) that might cause confusion. Mark Wahlberg is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not a disambiguation page, and it currently has hatnotes, none of which reference this redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We only have one article about anyone called Mark Wahlberg; see Wahlberg (surname). Mark L. Walberg spells his surname differently. The hatnotes on both articles are appropriate and clear. Nothing to disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Narky Blert. Glades12 (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this nomination, it's unclear why CapnZapp with this edit converted the misspelling Mark Wallberg from a disambiguation page to a double redirect now to here at Mark Wahlberg (disambiguation), itself a redirect to a dab page for any ol' Wahlberg, person name or not.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had this discussion not been still open, I would have put Mark Wallberg up for RFD as ambiguous. Does it refer to Mark Wahlberg or Mark Walberg, or is it a known or unknown misspelling? Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why Mark Wallberg should be reverted back to being a disambiguation page and not a redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have reverted Mark Wallberg back to a disambiguation page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is only one relevant Mark Wahlberg so there is nothing to disambiguate. If anyone can find a second "Mark Wahlberg" mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (with this exact spelling), then my preference would be retarget Wahlberg (surname). Deryck C. 16:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO an ambiguous given name+surname redirect to a surname page would be a really bad idea. Surname pages are not DAB pages, and bad links to them rarely get found and fixed unless someone goes looking for them. In 2019, Certes and I ran a project on bad links to surname pages in a limited topic area. We sorted out 1,500+. It took about two weeks. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: This is a reason why {{given name}} and {{surname}} should be {{disambiguation-given name}} and {{disambiguation-surname}}, respectively, so they're like a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation pages, to be honest. For all intents and purposes, they are disambiguation pages that sometimes have footnotes (which we could easily note at WP:MOSDAB. Doug Mehus T·C 20:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS on the nature of given name and surname pages. If you think it should be changed, take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, and, in my view, the appropriate place is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, looping in the other WikiProject. Doug Mehus T·C 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and, in particular to Deryck's comments that the surname set index page would've been a better target had there been more than two "Mark Wahlbergs". Personally, I think our G14 is a bit too constraining. That's not to say I see problem with unnecessary, natural disambiguation (i.e., The journal Nature) that clearly have usage, but this is a case where I think G14 was clearly met in spirit. Doug Mehus T·C 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sole purpose of this title is to hold (or redirect to) a list of other articles that might have been called "Mark Wahlberg" had that title not already been occupied. There are no such pages to list. The only person with a confusingly similarly name already has a hatnote. Certes (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2020 (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.

Latinoamerican[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 29#Latinoamerican

Benjamin Kyle[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 Benjaman Kyle. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kyle → List of Babylon 5 characters#Benjamin Kyle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Benjaman Kyle, which is the article most people are probably looking for when they search "Benjamin Kyle". "Benjamin" is a common mis-spelling of the amnesiac's name ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and most of the top Google results for "Benjamin Kyle" are about him. The Babylon 5 character doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. Surachit (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add a {{distinguish}} hatnote to Benjaman Kyle at List of Babylon 5 characters#Benjamin Kyle. A hatnote on Benjaman Kyle in the form "Benjamin Kyle redirects here. For the Babylon 5 character, see Benjamin Kyle" would look distinctly peculiar. Narky Blert (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Second thoughts): Retarget per nom, as {{R from misspelling}}. Create the redirect Benjamin Kyle (Babylon 5), pointing to List of Babylon 5 characters#Benjamin Kyle, and add a {{redirect}} hatnote to it in Benjaman Kyle. Narky Blert (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2020 (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.