Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 7, 2020.

Akokra Nana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#Akokra Nana

E numberE216[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird bot creation, prob(ot)ably accidental. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 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.

Comparative morphology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Comparative morphology

Reiwa collapse[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 soft delete as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the coronavirus and resulting economic shocks are occurring in the Reiwa era by the Japanese reckoning, these phrases are unattested outside of Wikipedia and are unlikely English-language terms for the coronavirus recession. (The only mention of Reiwa at the target article is in the name of a typhoon.) --BDD (talk) 18:12, 7 July 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.

PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-DZGCQCFKSA-N[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) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • These terms do come up next to "Catechin" in various Scholar search results. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rosguill's research shows that these terms aren't just gibberish. Are they likely/meaningful search terms?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a database code similar to Wikidata Q codes with no inherent meaning. Abductive (reasoning) 11:00, 12 July 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.

Narasimharaja[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Narasimharaja (Vidhan Sabha constituency) and Delete rest. Italawar (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the article Narasimharaja is not very useful, and should be deleted. But somebody may have a vested interest in that article. I am fine with it even if that link remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.47.28.8 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, considering that I see them all as potential alternative spellings for their target, and the nomination has not explained why one redirect should remain while the others are deleted, so I have to assume its personal preference as opposed to claiming that the other redirects aren't helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to avoid unnecessary expansion of the parallel articles Italawar (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (This editor is the nominator.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...This statement doesn't make sense in regards to redirect functionality. For one, if anything, having redirects towards a specific page discourages content being created at the titles (see WP:REDLINK and apply the opposite concept to this.) In addition, this statement also doesn't explain how these redirects are problematic redirects as search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 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.

Văn Quân[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Nom was CU blocked and the discussion is a trainwreck, no prejudice towards renomination. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

  • Redirect was originally created by mistake, since the correct name of the place in "Văn Quan", not "Văn Quân"
  • In this case, "Văn Quân" cannot be considered an alternate spelling either. 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A7V2: Văn Quân means Wenjun, and it is a Chinese first name (in your example Zhuo is the poet's last name), but then it is also the first name of many other Chinese people (for example Yu Wenjun (Dữu Văn Quân [vi])) so it doesn't make any sense to retarget to the article about the poet (which is only one of them). In fact, enwiki currently has articles about many people named Wenjun, you can find them here, so the ideal solution is to create disambiguation page Wenjun listing all the people named Wenjun, and retarget Văn Quân to that page. However, I don't know whether such a disambiguation is valid 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @30ChuaPhaiLaTet: If the page lists only people with the same name then it's not technically a disambiguation page but a set index article (in practical terms there is essentially no difference other than the categories its in) but the are valid. See Wikipedia:Name pages#Lists of people for advice. I'd draft one myself but don't have time today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @30ChuaPhaiLaTet: well I was technically correct that it was part of her name in Vietnamese.... thanks for the info, I definitely support yours and Thryduulf's idea for some kind of name/disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral between keeping (as it's a rather old {{R from move}}) or deleting as an unlikely typo, but oppose retargeting to Wenjun if it gets created, seeing as all potential entries are Chinese people who have nothing to do with Vietnam and aren't known by their Vietnamese name in any English-language sources. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose to keeping, it is clearly a typo in this case, as if you accidentally press double 'a' on a Telex Vietnamese keyboard, it will automatically become 'â'. When they did the moves 10 years ago, they did it on a large number of articles, so a mistake is reasonable.
    • Also, I think enwiki should have specific rules about redirects for Vietnamese words. In English, if you misspelled a word, it is likely that the misspelled word doesn't have any meaning. However, in Vietnamese, it is very likely that a misplaced diacritic will end up with a word having a completely different meaning. Therefore, I'd say we should only allow non-diacritic form of every Vietnamese article titles, misplaced-diacritic names should not be encouraged. In this case, if Văn Quân was a meaningless word, then I'd be okay with keeping it. However, Văn Quân clearly has a meaning, vi:Văn Quân, so something must be done to fix it, keeping it just because it's old doesn't make any sense 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 30ChuaPhaiLaTet, please refrain from making additional bolded votes, as you already made your position clear in your opening statement. I've gone ahead and unbolded this second vote. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 10 July 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.

Helen Stetter[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 where encyclopedic content exists. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, since none are old enough to any longer be on their respective lists or any other longevity list on Wikipedia. Not mentioned in other articles. Removing redirects to nowhere is routine maintenance. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 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.

Wikipedia:RFP[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. Not going to happen by any stretch. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to WP:PERM instead. I was advised by Izno after an edit request to go over here. The redirect is fully protected, so I cannot retarget it. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 12:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep. This is one of the core shortcuts on Wikipedia that has pointed to it's current target since 2004 and is referenced in literally thousands of discussions that would be unnecessarily be broken and you would also be introducing lots of incorrect links as people referenced the wrong place. This was the consensus of the 2008 discussion and it has only gotten more entrenched since then. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While in theory that would be a better target, moving the redirect target now would affect thousands of links. The negative effects of retargeting are greater than the positive effects of retargeting. Hog Farm Bacon 13:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Thryduulf. Personally I use this shortcut virtually every day. I'm glad to see it's fully protected at that target. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – No good reason to change a shortcut with a very long history of being used to reference requests for page protection. Would break thousands upon thousands of links unnecessarily. Master of Time (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and others above. No good reason to retarget anywhere else. CycloneYoris talk! 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - Why would a shortcut redirect like this be up for deletion? A redirect is a shortcut to finding the right article for you. For example, WP:A redirects to Wikipedia:Attribution. Everybody can notice that shortcut and how short the redirect is. So, i would say very strong keep for this one, i would NOT vote for delete stuff like WP:A. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 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.

Magit[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page, or rather, not mentioned at the target page anymore, see diff. Tea2min (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It does get an entry at Comparison of Git GUIs but that's not enough to anchor a redirect. If the redirect deleted, the see also section at fugitive.vim should also be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's also a surname, and the Magits was a group (we have no articles). Let the search tool do its job. Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 7 July 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.

Jabal Ghumaylah[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 restore. This also resolves the "not mentioned" concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target section. This was created as a stub about a hill in the Emirate. In 2017 DrStrauss (talk · contribs) (since blocked) redirected it "to nearest article which could use it".[1] – Fayenatic London 09:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned at target. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not connected --Devokewater (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to a merge or AfD. RfD should not be used to delete article content that has never been discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per above. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 16 July 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.

Daniel Dor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 14#Daniel Dor

Throat gagging[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 Pharyngeal reflex. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profane slang, could just as well refer to the gag reflex. Hog Farm Bacon 03:45, 7 July 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.

Bonjwa[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. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I do remember Bonjwa from my StarCraft-watching days, but it doesn't look like we have any relevant information about him, and thus I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creator What do you mean "him"? I don't think you're thinking about the same bonjwa - I was pertaining to the title inofficially awarded to SC pros who have been successful for a very long time, such as BoxeR and Flash. Here are some notability examples: [2] [3] [4] Gaioa (T C L) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaioa, y'know, I could have sworn there was a player by this name. My bad. Do you think a sourced mention could be added to the article? signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Maybe. I'm not home RN and can't really edit properly, but if the redir can wait a day or two I'll fix it. Gaioa (T C L) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since it's not a StarCraft-exclusive term (see e.g. [5]), sourced mentions could be added to multiple articles, so it's sort of a WP:XY problem. Seeing as it's a real word with its own entry in the Standard Korean Language Dictionary, but probably not a WP:NOTABLE topic, I think the best outcome would be a soft redirect to wikt:본좌 (the original form of the term in Korean) - but first I have to go create the Wiktionary entry, since it doesn't exist yet. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a reference to Bonjwa at the Starcraft page. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more or less per 59.149. If it's a significant enough term, it will gain a sourced mention in a logical location soon enough. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 21 July 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.

Wikipedia:RW[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Wikipedia:RW

American expansionism[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 Manifest destiny. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both originally redirected to United States territorial acquisitions, but American expansionism was retargeted to Territorial evolution of the United States by User:Deisenbe in January 2019. They should point to the same target. Paul_012 (talk) 01:55, 7 July 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.

AP.com[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ap.com website has nothing to do with associated press, and their 2 websites are ap.org and apnews.com so the redirect should be deleted. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Audio Precision and Associated Press have nothing to do with each other. Narky Blert (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 10:07, 7 July 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.

Spongebob Squarepants Complete List[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2006, the ambiguous Complete list was deleted, yet this one has survived all those years since this. It doesn't seem to get very many pageviews (only 49 since July 2015), maybe since it's also ambiguous (though there's some disambiguation here) and can also refer to the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters (although I'm not 100% sure about retargeting there) or another list of stuff that might be better left for the SpongeBob wikis. As such, I suggest we delete this, although I'm also open to it being retargeted wherever appropriate. Regards, SONIC678 01:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. An exact search at DuckDuckGo only shows the Wikipedia redirect in the results. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Good find. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 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.

Westward expansion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#Westward expansion

US space program[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) CycloneYoris talk! 02:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept draft at US space program

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_26#Space_programme_of_the_United_States Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow accepting the draft at Draft:US space program - probably qualifies for G6 --DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. When the draft is accepted the redirect will be speedily deleted per WP:G6 at that time. There is no need or benefit to deleting before the draft is ready. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NASA is in charge of program. If draft gets accepted speedy the redirect. 122.61.86.240 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Some editors are backlashing my draft anyway. When the draft will be reviewed, the redirect will be speedied as housekeeping. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:29, 8 July 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.

Silas (football manager)[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 Silas (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silas (disambiguation) or Silas (name). This is not the only football manager known by this mononym, there's also Silas (Portuguese footballer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:e187:5f00:3c53:7ddb:b6be:8dfc (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Silas (name) per nom (1st choice), specifically to the "People" section, which lists both managers (and other footballers), and where I recently retargeted the related Silas (footballer) (and later reverted to wait to see how the discussion will play out). If that doesn't work, we can also retarget to the other page suggested by the nom (2nd choice), per Narky's argument below. Regards, SONIC678 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC), updated 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Silas (name) per SONIC678. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above per Narky Blert below, and include a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. —2pou (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Silas (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, most certainly not to Silas (name). Ambiguous (i.e. bad) links to DAB pages get found and fixed. Most links to name pages do not. Certes and I ran a project in 2019 to fix bad links to name pages in a very specific subject area. We found and fixed 1500. Some of those errors had been there for more than a decade. We repeated it last month. We found and fixed another 100, all new.
Silas (footballer) should be retargetted to Silas (disambiguation) for the same reason. Mononyms fall under {{hndis}}. Narky Blert (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really bothered, but Silas (name) is the obvious choice. The point above about "links to name pages don't get fixed" is nonsense - fix it. GiantSnowman 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different retargeting options presented...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Silas (disambiguation) per @Narky Blert: who makes a very good point, which perhaps could be embedded in guidance somewhere? WP:INCOMPLETEDISAMBIGUATION actually does say "In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page" which is not what is being recommended here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shhhnotsoloud: WP:INCDAB also says "Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page". The same concept is hinted at in Template:Disambiguation#Parameters, which says "add a parameter from this list if the disambiguation page has several items of that type: [...] {{Disambiguation|human name}} (note that you must instead add the category separately if it needs a different sort key)". The proviso implies that sometimes no separate sortkey is needed, and that is indeed usually the case. An example of the proviso in action is Albert Hall (disambiguation).
    Good luck with getting a guideline changed! I once proposed amending a sentence I found ambiguous; I won't make that mistake again. Narky Blert (talk) 11:53, 9 July 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.

Talkng to Myself[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 Talking to Myself. There's no consensus between delete and redirect, but given the lack of a "keep" camp, redirecting is the most productive outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. I suggest deletion or a retarget to Talking to Myself which is a dab page. CycloneYoris talk! 04:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a common enough typo to warrant a separate redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab page as harmless and useful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:02, 7 July 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.

Nerdview[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) CycloneYoris talk! 02:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has been tagged for over a year "This article is missing information about nerdview (which redirects here)...". Without an explanation, redirecting "nerdview" here is confusing, so delete because enwiki has nothing about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A mention has now been added to the target, although I'm not sure how due it is. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7&oldid=969462969"