Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2020.

Marhwini[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fictional concept, not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, and it probably shouldn't be. Hog Farm (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we're really scraping the barrel here. Smaller than minor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 22 May 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.

Image help[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) 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often will be a big surprise; any editor wanting to find Help:Pictures will probably know to prefix Wikipedia: to the search. This page will generally be quite helpful, so delete if no one finds an appropriate target. — J947 [cont] 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a strong opinion on this redirect, but I think I disagree with the core assertion that anyone trying to find the help page will know the correct prefix syntax. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 21 May 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.

Template:Non-free image[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 Template:Non-free fair use. because I do not see consensus to delete. This would seem to satisfy other comments who are wary of deletion but unsatisfied with the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASTONISHing to users of this template, as the name could plausibly refer to any type of non-free image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about turn it instead to a normal template which will act like a "generic non-free image"? Or maybe a template that says that you should specify what kind of non-free image it is? Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Non-free fair use, which is obviously a more suitable target. --NYKevin 21:19, 29 May 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.

Greevillage, Pennsylvania[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 for history reasons and as a plausible typo (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simple misspelling that is unlikely to be replicated. Star Garnet (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Prahlad balaji: Please fully understand the criterion before using it, you have misapplied R3 several times now: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[3] unless the moved page was also recently created. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was at this title for a couple years, so this is a useful redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Tavix. Obviously doesn't fall under R3 and definitely falls under the exemption for such. The page was at the original title for years, not breaking links is a very good reason to keep the redirect. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wp:R3 unlikely typo The creeper2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The creeper2007: As I've explained above, R3 does not apply to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep Just noticed that this is created as a result for a page move. Keep to avoid breaking links.
  • Keep per Tavix and K4. — J947 [cont] 22:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This typo is entirely plausible (unlike others), and clearly not ambiguous. So, no reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, the E and V keys are also close to each other on a keyboard. Regards, SONIC678 01:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's unambiguous, the page was here for some time, and it's not ridiculous. There's no harm in keeping this redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and create another misspelled redirect titled Greevillage, Pennyslvania. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix it was moved to this title with the reason "most usual spelling" so even if it isn't the most usual spelling its likely to be a useful search term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:52, 23 May 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.

Christmas in Canada?[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 the question, redirect the second to Observance of Christmas by country#Canada. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that anyone would type the question mark at the end, especially if that's not even the name of the episode. Redirect is barely ever visited. Also, only three edits to the redirect, which only proves how unhelpful it is.

If there was an actual article about Canadian Christmas, then it could have been redirected there, but there is no such article. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we really need to delete this trash? We really need to delete this trash. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Soumya-8974: Please don't use the template {{abbr}} if unneeded because it interferes with accessibility. Please note: Do not use {{abbr}} or <abbr> to mark up material other than abbreviations or acronyms. Using it to generate tooltips elsewhere is a misuse of the underlying HTML and causes accessibility problems. is a passage from the template's documentation. — J947 [cont] 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it. Striking the humorous sentence. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous with the actual event of Christmas in Canada. Delete Christmas in Canada as well for the same reason. — J947 [cont] 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, adding it to the discussion. Working on it...
    ...done. Regards, SONIC678 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one, and retarget the second one I added a few days ago to Observance of Christmas by country#Canada (1st choice) or delete it to encourage article creation (2nd choice). As noted by J947, people searching this term could also be looking for Christmas traditions in Canada (information and some sources for which is found in the section mentioned here), and I'm thinking it might be able to warrant an article if enough info and reliable sources are available, like with stuff like Christmas in Mexico and Christmas in Ukraine. Regards, SONIC678 14:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow for more discussion of the retarget proposal for the second redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really feel strongly about the first one, but Christmas in Canada should definitely be retargeted towards Observance of Christmas by country#Canada. People looking up "Christmas in Canada" are likely wanting to find info on Christmas traditions in Canada, although a hatnote at the top of the section wouldn't be out of place. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:58, 21 May 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.

Interstate 425[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 revert & keep. There's a significant consensus that the actual move-without-redirect that led to this one was improper. There's also been some hypothetical discussion that's failed to think of a particularly compelling use case of the original redirect, but it's undoubtedly a technically reasonable search term given that this was demonstrably considered as a number for this road. The later participants increasingly seem to think that Tavix's suggestion of reverting this redirect to its original location is reasonable, as a result. However, BDD's point combines with my own view that it would be particularly bizarre to move-without-redirect this one back to Interstate 425 in Colorado to revert the move, while leaving a redlink at the undisambiguated Interstate 425 in the same way the original move-without-redirect was criticised. This unnecessarily complicated situation is, I think, most cleanly solved by recreating the original redirect and leaving this one where it is, as there's no significant page history anyway. ~ mazca talk 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interstate 425 → Interstate 270 (Colorado)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  not mentioned at the target. I see that U.S. Route 425, although I'm not sure if it's ever referred to as "Interstate 425". Either redirect to there or delete if no justification for the current target can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know either. But U.S. Route 425 is not Interstate 425 as a quick search pops up. And plus Interstate 425 is nonexistent. 3125ATalk!Contributions! 15:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert Imzadi1979's move of Interstate 425 in Colorado to Interstate 425, to fix the page history back to CRoy77's intent when creating the redirect. In fact, I would warn Imzadi1979 that suppressing the redirect is a violation of WP:PMRC and that further violations can and should lead to a revocation of the page mover user right. While it may be true that the disambiguation is "unneeded", that is not a reason for deletion, speedy or otherwise. It is also a violation of WP:MOVEREDIRECT, which states that moving redirects are rarely useful. Instead, if Imzadi1979 felt that there should be a redirect titled "Interstate 425", they should have created the redirect themselves, and if they felt that "Interstate 425 in Colorado" should be deleted, they should have nominated that redirect at RFD (which I would advise against because I would !vote to keep that redirect). Now to the meat of the issue, Interstate 270 (Colorado) connects Interstates 25 and 70, so the interstate could just as easily been an auxiliary of 25 over 70. So, I suspected that it was a provisional name before its creation. A little digging shows "Preliminary numbering for the freeway connecting I-80S (now I-76) and Stapleton International Airport in Denver identified the loop as Interstate 425. The designation was changed to Interstate 270 by AASHO on February 26, 1959" -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is somewhere between "redirects are cheap" and "not everything needs a redirect". On one hand, I see the benefit of having an I-425 page redirect to I-270. On the other hand, what page is going to use the I-425 link? If you want to include it on the list of Colorado Interstate Highways simply because the number was used in the planning stages then changed to I-270 before the road was built, then you should be swatted with a rolled-up newspaper. If it doesn't have any useful purpose, deletion is the way to go. –Fredddie™ 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Tavix said. per Tavix. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per Freddie. These preliminary numbers are rarely worth mentioning, and even more rarely worth linking. (P.S. the original wasn't in compliance with WP:USSH, which is why it was moved.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Imzadi1979: see RHARMFUL. Also, why did you violate WP:PMRC? — J947 [cont] 04:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Imzadi1979: Naming conventions are for the titles of articles, they are inapplicable to redirects. This is yet another reason why you should not have the page mover right. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Tavix. — J947 [cont] 04:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Revert per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert/Keep Imzadi1979's move was fine, up until the obviously incorrect suppression of the original name. Tavix has demonstrated why the redirect itself it fine, and simply as a matter of navigation, there's no reason we shouldn't have both "Interstate 425" and "Interstate 425 in Colorado" redirecting. That could be accomplished simply by recreating the latter. Since there's no significant page history, the difference is immaterial for readers. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 3 June 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.

Xiao En[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Xiao En

Rarest element[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) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted after being listed at RfD but without drawing discussion, in addition to the argument raised there, I think we should consider deleting this redirect due to its ambiguity; it is the rarest naturally occurring element in the earth's crust, but synthetic elements are arguably more rare. FWIW, I wasn't able to find any sources that claim a definitive rarest element in the known universe. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no evidence that astatine is the rarest element. JIP | Talk 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's rather ambiguous- rarest element in what? The crust of the earth? The universe? The Solar System? Pokemon? Hog Farm (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, title is a non-identifying property. -DePiep (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. While it is true that astatine is the rarest naturally occurring element in Earth's crust, this doesn't necessarily make it the rarest element in the universe. This is a non sequitur. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even the status of At has been disputed, and it is not a universal identifier for any element (heck, we don't even know if any elements exist in space that don't exist on Earth). Also safe to say it's snowing. ComplexRational (talk) 17:47, 22 May 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.

Donald Pomeroy[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) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First + middle name search terms are unlikely to begin with, and this redirect misspells the middle name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for a number of reasons. First, as Rosguill stated, it is a recently created misspelling misspelling and therefore qualifies for WP:R3 (not kidding this time around). Also, Rosguill stated that it is an unlikely search term, and that is why (a) it's only getting a meager 5 pageviews, and (b) only three pages link to it, all of which are not even articles. They are the creator's talkpage, this RfD, and the WP:RfD page. Nothing ever linked to the page before Rosguill brought it to RfD. So thank you, Rosguill, for bringing this useless and misspelt clutter to attention. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:30, 22 May 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.

Richard Goldberg (WMD)[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) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unhelpful disambiguator. The subject does appear to have some relation to WMDs, as Iran and weapons of mass destruction is listed as a See also link, but this connection is not explained in the article text. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets seem to imply that Richard Goldberg is himself a WMD. Delete as it's an incorrect disambiguation regardless if Goldberg is connected to WMDs in some way. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:03, 21 May 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.

Bilanggo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Bilanggo

TLOB[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) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I wasn't able to find any instances of RS referring to the target this way, and did end up with a lot of unrelated search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:VG/LEAD, this abbreviation can refer to a lot of other things besides that game. Regards, SONIC678 18:46, 21 May 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.

Warworld (Transformers)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Warworld (Transformers)

Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

The result of the discussion was looking at the history (in addition to the previous RfD already noted):
So disambiguate with no prejudice against an RM to make the state (or any of the other topics) primary by moving it here, or against turning the disambiguation page into a broad-concept article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Jammu and Kashmir is also a former state 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, no clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Disambiguate for now as drafted below the redirect, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_30#Jammu_and_Kashmir. I like BDD's idea for a WP:BCA but I don't think it can be implented immediately. For now, a dab page seems to be the best idea. — J947 [cont] 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate so as not to endorse a specific POV on the Kashmir conflict. Jammu and Kashmir can refer to either the princely state, the Indian state, the Indian Union territory, or even the general region of "Kashmir". Redirecting to an Indian territory named "Jammu and Kashmir" endorses the Indian position that India is the legitimate successor to that princely state and that Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India, a statement I would imagine Pakistan disagrees with. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state). There is existing WikiProject India consensus that it should be retained for the foreseeable future. The state has exsited for 70 odd years, while the new union territory has not even existed for 70 months. There are vast number of references to the state in reliable sources, including several thousand on Wikipedia itself. There is no conceivable reason to throw all of them into confusion. For the people who are trying to look up current events, the hatnote at the top of the page sens them to the union territory page, and the problem is solved. Don't fix something that ain't broken. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state) per Kautilya3. I am swayed by the argument that those looking for J&K should get a Wikipedia page that describes it in its current state. However, this is usually simply a springboard to access other information about Kashmir: its history, details of the conflict, etc. There is a vast administrative challenge in reorganising all Kashmir-related information. It makes sense here to defer to the Indian WikiProject, which has taken on the challenge, and will keep on top of possible developments or legal challenges that materialise hereafter. This position also doesn't privilege one position or another on Kashmir, which is a breath of fresh air, given how easily Kashmir-related articles are politicised. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there was a discussion about this (and a suite of similar redirects) in November last year - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Jammu and Kashmir. While that discussion ended in no-consensus overall, there was consensus that the current target was not inappropriate even if there wasn't agreement on whether it was the best target. @BDD, Bluesatellite, DeluxeVegan, JJMC89, Kautilya3, Mazca, Sharouser, Steel1943, Tavix, Uanfala, and Willbb234: you had some involvement with that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep status quo as a redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state) per above (the redirect was retargeted to the union territory only a few days ago). Notwithstanding the recent political reorganisation, there's still a more or less clear primary topic. Of course, this will need to be re-examined at some point in the future, but it's too early now. Disambiguation for example is premature as it will require renaming and possibly restructuring at least some of the related articles. – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per draft below RfD on the page. CrazyBoy826 —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state). That has been and is still the primary usage of the term in reliable sources. If that changes, we can retarget and/or disambiguate the title. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (for now?) to clean up links and make sure they're pointing the correct article. The other redirects from the previous discussion should be retargeted there. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. Those who said Jammu and Kashmir (state) is the primary topic because it exsited for 70 years just makes no sense, since Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) had existed earlier and way much longer (over a century). "Jammu and Kashmir" is pretty much ambiguous for now, so let's not unneutrally promote a certain topic and just let the readers choose which Kashmir they want to read. Bluesatellite (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. --Sharouser (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. I strongly oppose redirecting the base title to a disambiguated one. If we determine there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be at the base title. --BDD (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:FIXDABLINKS will apply if there is a consensus to disambiguate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already commented briefly above, but given that the hints by me, Kautilya and others appear to have been ignored, I feel I need to go at greater length. First off, disambiguation requires the absence of a primary topic, and this has not at all been demonstrated. We've got an established article that has been at the primary title for over a decade, and the question has already been discussed several times, including at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)#Disambiguation page, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)#Requested move 1 November 2019, and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 68#Kashmir pages. I haven't reviewd these discussions now, but if my memory isn't deceiving me, disambiguation was floated several times, it received some support, but no consensus that I recall. Given the extent of the past discussions, I can't see how anything short of an RfC would be procedurally acceptable.
    Now taking a broader look, I think the article about the contemporary administrative unit (Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), or whatever article succeeds it) will ultimately need to be moved to the primary title, but this will probably happen in at least ten years, possibly more. Disambiguation could well be an appropriate intermediate step, suitable for the phase when the salience of the former state has waned and the contemporary union territory has moved to the centre of the discourse. For the time being, the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "Jammu and Kashmir" are for the former state, and it's going to be years before this changes.
    And as for attempting to fix incoming links at this stage, that would be a fool's errand. The vast majority of links will be for Jammu and Kashmir (state), but that article's title is ambiguous as it could appy to any of the three articles listed in the draft disambiguation page: the former (princely) state, the former state (of India), and the current union territory (which is set to become a state in the future). Changing the links without first rethinking the article names would be pointless. All the more so because after the union territory is promoted to a state it will be perfectly plausible for the two articles to be merged again (with Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) remaining as an obscure article about a briefly existing administrative territory), and in that case many of the previously "fixed" links would need to be changed back again. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without commenting on your other points – an RfC and further look at all three titles may appropriate – I believe that there is no primary topic here. The views indicated a slim majority for the former state but those views are largely pushed up by where the Jammu and Kashmir redirect targets – when the undiscussed May retarget of the redirect happened, the union territory was pushed up, though not as much the former state had been pushed up by. Thus, I don't think that the former state holds the primary topic – at least by view of where the readers want to go. — J947 [cont] 20:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "the overwhelming majority of uses of the term 'Jammu and Kashmir' are for the former state", it may well be that the links were created when that state is current, but I suspect many of them are fundamentally about the region, and would be equally useful if ultimately routed to the current political unit. I spot-checked three of these (Irredentism, Sikhs, and Rhododendron), and all fell into this category. I assume there are a few instances along the lines of "The state of Jammu and Kashmir was established in 1954", so sure, some links will need to be fixed.
    Ultimately, this is why a broad-concept article is optimal. When we disambiguate at base titles, it's to say, "There are multiple things with this name, none of which is predominant." But I would argue that there really is one thing primary called "Jammu and Kashmir" (i.e., a region—while this is not my favorite example, compare to Ireland), and intellectually, these specific political entities with that name are subtopics. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 25 May 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.

Proms[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 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Prom (disambiguation) per WP:PLURALPT similar to the fact that Cars redirects to Car despite the fact that the film has nearly as many views, in this case Prom more than double views (18,680) than The Proms (9,307)[[1]]. See similar outcomes of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#Doors (and Wishes below) so there might even be a case to redirect to Prom but the DAB page probably makes most sense. There was a failed RM at Talk:The Proms#Requested move 17 April 2020. I have no objection in moving The Proms to something like Proms (UK) but there shouldn't be a primary topic for the plural per WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW. There are still a number of links to Proms which I can't determine even though I fixed most of them. Like Cars (film) The Proms also derives the general dance meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom, but make Prom the disambig page itself, since "Prom" as a disambig page would clearly not be a primary topic. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that while most people would indeed be typing just "Prom" to find the general concept surely some of the people looking for the BBC Proms would type "The Proms" or "BBC Proms". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good redirect, I'd never type "The Proms" when searching, nor "BBC proms". Their name is "Proms", not "The Proms", and we should have moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concert series is by far the primary topic for the plural form "Proms". No-one would type the plural if they were looking for the school dance, or any other topic on the disambiguation page. But people are very likely to type "Proms" if they are looking for the concerts, as that is their commonly used name, and this holds throughout the world - although UK-based they are an internationally known series, with musicians from around the world taking part. WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW thus supports the present redirect. And the quoted viewing figures are irrelevant - they tell us which pages people looked at but not what they typed in the search box to get there. I would add that there are many links on other pages that make use of this redirect as it has been in place and stable for many years. Changing the redirect would disrupt these existing links as well as disadvantaging users looking for the concert series. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same logic the film is by far primary for "Cars" yet not only does Cars not go to the film it goes to Car. Cars (film) gets 74,315 while Car only gets 56,728![[2]] yet its the textbook example of a WP:PLURALPT. Why on earth would we make The Proms primary when it gets less than half the views of prom(s). WORLDWIDEVIEW generally supports going to the general meaning which Prom is. Perhaps if anything that article is a WP:Broad concept article for The Proms which we could discuss there. But at minimum there is no primary topic. The links aren't a problem, they can be fixed if you know the meaning but even after doing external searches I couldn't determine if the links were intended for proms in general or the BBC Proms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly WP:PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and so we cannot use "Car"/"Cars" as a template for how we deal with "Prom"/"Proms". Secondly, as I have already said in my comment above, the page views you quote are not relevant because they don't tell us what people typed to find the page. I don't think there is any doubt that the concert series is the primary topic for "Proms" (plural), and that is what people are most likely to type in the search box. They are much less likely to search for "BBC Proms", and very unlikely to type "The Proms" as that name seems to be a Wikipedia invention - it is not used on the Proms website or publications. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and in this case the points for treating proms in general seems stronger than for cars since (1) the views for BBC Proms are less than half of proms in general, (2) BBC Proms has other terms it could be search for with namely "The Proms" and "BBC Proms" even if "Proms" alone is still the most common and (3) as I noted proms in general could probably be used as a broad-concept article for the BBC Proms since its about a type of proms while the film could probably only be mentioned in an "in popular culture" section while it would probably be possible to mention the BBC Proms at in the lead of the Prom article. So indeed based on my last point the views for BBC actually adds rather that detracts for the general meaning which indeed means you could actually argue that the plural should point to the general meaning instead. Going back to PLURALPT prom(s) seems to be a count noun similar to chair(s) and car(s) in that its commonly used in both the singular (1 car) and the plural (many cars), isn't this the case with prom(s), I don't know since I've never heard of either the general term or the BBC Proms but the article seems to indicate it is a count noun. There are also many cases where although the singular has a primary topic the plural goes to a DAB (like Walls) which is what I'm suggesting here but there are only a few cases where it goes to a different topic (like Windows). In many cases where a "plural" goes to a DAB (like Papers) or another article (like Blues) is actually because the article located at the "singular" is a mass noun meaning it doesn't really have a plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see there might be an argument to create a broad-concept article about Proms concerts in general, covering topics such as the Hallé Proms (Manchester), the BSO Proms (Bournemouth) and the RSNO Proms (Glasgow and other Scottish cities), but this would not displace the BBC Proms as the primary topic for the term "Proms". Note that at the moment these other Proms seasons are not even mentioned on the pages about their host orchestras. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently titled Prom can probably do that without the need to create a new article. See Kansas City as a similar example where links to both cities appear in Kansas City metropolitan area (which Kansas City redirects to) which the same could be done for Prom(s) in which case nothing more than Something like "One of the most notable proms is the BBC Proms. Which would cover cases where people were seeking the BBC Proms specifically rather than proms in general. Indeed other proms like in Bournemouth and Scotland could also be mentioned in the UK part of the Prom article along with more about the BBC Proms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep this excellent and useful redirect, per Gerda Arendt and 92.40.53.205 above.--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per others, a search for plural "Proms" is most likely to be for the globally known concerts, and as regards the OPs other suggestions "The Proms" is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the global general article seems a clear primary topic if anything. Crouch, Swale (talk)
  • Keep as a primary topic redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 23 May 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.

Adam Thorn (wildlife biologist)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page was redirected several days ago. Before the page was redirected, the only contents were "Adam Thorn is a wildlife biologist who is notable for appearing in the History channel television series Kings of Pain." Considering that Kings of Pain is the article that this redirects to, I think this redirect might as well be deleted due to the fact that the the information provided by the redirect doesn't provide any information that isn't already provided by the Kings of Pain article. XXX8906 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The intent retaining the redirect is that if someone types Adam Thorn into the search box, this will point them to the information being sought. Without the redirect, you'd already have to know Kings of Pain relates the the Adam Thorn you might be looking for. I did notice that you are the original creator of the page when an article, so I'm overall neutral. -2pou (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. XXX8906 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the suggestion in the search bar makes this redirect helpful; even if the Kings of Pain article gives minimal information about him, it's still more than nothing. ~ mazca talk 12:16, 25 May 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.

Saint Lucia at the 2020 Summer Olympics[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 to make way for an article being drafted at User:Jonel/sandbox signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page (or Saint Lucia at the Summer Olympics). I'm not sure if there is sufficient content to start the article (a quick google search suggests several hopefuls but no-body qualified) but this page definently should not retarget to 2020 Summer Olympics where Saint Lucia isn't even mentioned
SSSB (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that all NOCs compete is irrelevant. A redirect aims to point people to information about the subject they searched for. Neither 2020 Summer Olympics nor Saint Lucia at the Olympics provide this about Saint Lucia at the 2020 games. This redirect only serves to infuriate readers as they search for information within 2020 Summer Olympics about Saint Lucia at those games. A series of sources about the subject actually gives cause for it to be deleted per WP:RfD#D10 so as to promote article creation in its place.
    SSSB (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say make it an article. Started drafting one in my sandbox, based on the sources Sportsfan linked. Guessing more could be found. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:23, 21 May 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 policy[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 Wikipedia#Policies and laws. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to encyclopedic content at Wikipedia#Policies and laws. — J947 [cont] 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article about Wikipedia is driven by sources and is meant for readers. If an editor is looking for our policies, they do better to read our WP-space content. And because you used Twinkle for this nonsense retargeting, you notified Larry Sanger about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are fair points, but the redirects should at least point to the same place if nothing else. — J947 [cont] 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed retarget but I agree these redirects should ideally point to the same article in WP space. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia#Policies and laws. The better Wikipedia space target is Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as that gives the introduction to them that someone not using the namespace prefix is far more likely to be after than a simple list. That said, it is quite likely that people would be searching for encyclopaedic content about Wikipedia policies, so avoiding the cross-namespace reidrect is best. A {{selfref}} hatnote to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should be added at the top of that section to direct those who are looking for the project space content. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and Thryduulf. Hatnote the target section with {{redirect-multi|2|Wikipedia policies|Wikipedia policy|Wikipedia editing guidelines|Wikipedia:List of policies|and|Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The hatnote should use {{selfref}} so it is distinguished from encyclopaedia content. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per J947. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:45, 21 May 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.

Trigintaduonion[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 Sedenion. where it is mentioned usefully. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 21 May 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.

Royal Australian Iinstitute of Architects Gold Medal[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 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per an earliier diiscussiion wiith an "Iirish" rediirect, Ii'm not sure how plausiible thiis typo of "institute" iis (thiis rediirect now haviing much fewer pageviiews compared to iits correctly spelled counterpart Royal Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medal, whiich iis worth keepiing because iit's the offiiciial name of the iinstiitute siince the pagemove iin 2006 to the correct spelliing). Regards, SONIIC678 03:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unambiiguously created iin error. Narky Blert (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual – why delete? —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per K4. While it's not something likely to be used, it's not ambiguous, it's not harmful in any way, and it's very historic (2006). It might be a little off, but it's a one-letter typo. I don't see a great reason to delete beyond "let's clear the wiki". Hog Farm (talk) 22:44, 21 May 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.

Working Pearl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Working Pearl

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_21&oldid=1140357221"