Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2021.

Claudia Pulchra (wife of Gracchus)[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. Editors are divided on this issue, and given the amount of discussion relisting seems unlikely to lead to a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Complicated trove of misattributed/incorrect names which, since their original inception in 2015 (some were deleted and recreated several times after), have repeatedly misled readers and editors alike and led to several ill-conceived page moves and creations. There is only one person attested with the name 'Claudia Pulchra', but these entries and this highly irregular disambiguation page containing them have done a great deal to muddle this fact. Some of the people represented by the redirects are not even identical to whom the target articles represent, and so, even if any of the individual entries were correct, they'd be next to useless. It's highly unlikely anybody will ever type any of these terms without knowing them beforehand, and deleting all will spare both readers and editors of misdirection and confusion in the future. Avilich (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For two recent previous discussions, please see Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these wives are so minor that they are unlikely to be a major source of confusion, there is only one Claudia Pulchra in the academic literature as far as I can tell. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, and per prior AfDs and RfDs about Roman historical figures by Avilich. Vaticidalprophet 06:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator omitted some important context in this nomination. They previously brought a number of these redirects here in December (links added above), and they were kept after a relist each. I don't see anything that has changed since those discussions. In March, the nominator made a series of backhanded edits in an attempt to get them speedy deleted out of process. Given the incomplete nomination, the earlier discussions, and the pattern of deceptive editing, I'm inclined to close this as misleading and disruptive. - Eureka Lott 18:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read my reason for nominating and two of the above comments you'll notice that things have actually changed. The argument back then was that these might've been useful to readers, but they are all demonstrably incorrect and have now caused so many problems that this isn't thought to be the case anymore. Those who voted keep last discussion were also not well informed: one of them provided a source which he claimed supported keeping, but actually supported deleting. No one up til now has opposed the nomination, you don't seem to know what you're talking about, and this will objectively help rid Wikipedia of mistakes and falsehoods (as I always do), so you might want to step aside. There's a complicated 5-year old mistake which needs to be corrected, and 'backhanded' and 'deceptive' maneuvers were unfortunately necessary for it after keep-voters proved misinformed or uncooperative during the regular proceedings. Avilich (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius in the previous discussion. Redirects need not be 'correct', they are simply search terms that are used to find the relevant content, even if it may be an anachronism. If they are incorrect, simply tag them with {{R from incorrect name}}. I'm not following how they are incorrect though? In Tiberius Gracchus, for example, it says Later he married Claudia Pulchra, daughter of Appius Claudius Pulcher and Antistia. It has two references to Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, "The Life of Tiberius Gracchus," 4. and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, p. 209 ("Antistius"). -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for proving my point, because your two sources support my position. Plutarch doesn't give the surname and DGRBM vol. 1, p. 209 makes no mention of any Claudia at all. Since the name appears in no source at all, they are not going to help anybody find the correct target, and a look at the disambiguation page linked above indicates it will just cause confusion. Avilich (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I'd like to remind everyone that redirects are cheap. By that, there is no real problem wit keeping them -- or deleting them.
    Second, is it agreed that the primary reason for keeping these redirects is to help people who get the names slightly wrong? While there are some common errors in referring to people & individuals (e.g. "Frankenstein" is often used to refer to the monster, when it accurately refers to the monster's creator), not all erroneous forms of a name justify a redirect; we don't have "Paracles" or "Peracleese" as redirects to Pericles. So is it likely that people will look for various Claudiae as "Claudia Pulchra"? The only reason to assume that form of the name is correct is if one knows the woman's father or brother is named Claudius Pulcher, in which case she/he will likely know the woman was known as "Claudia" alone.
    Third & last, I notice that originally the page was about the woman whose name was definitely Claudia Pulchra was changed into a list article about several women by an anon IP who appears to have drawn his knowledge about Rome of the last century BC from several television programs! Arguing that the information here must be right because it has stood for so long is a weak argument: we know articles can receive many minor edits without being closely checked for accuracy; this revision was made back in 2007, when our standards for sourcing was admittedly much lower. Consider that we've had several cases where questionable material that was later proven to be clearly fallacious, despite the efforts of one insightful editor, has made Wikipedia look unreliable if not silly. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Frankenstein" is often used to refer to the monster, when it accurately refers to the monster's creator". As it happens, I recently cleaned up those links - see WP:BPAT#Archive#March 2021. Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llywrch: I take it you agree with me that nobody will go out of their way to type any of the above, then? Note that I tried to speedily delete that 'unreliable if not silly' disambiguation page multiple times, but it keep getting rejected because some admins and editors alike were (astonishingly) too lazy to distinguish the redirects from the single genuine page there listed. So it seems these redirects are causing active harm, with no tangible benefit to anybody. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the edit history of the disambiguation, I only see one speedy attempt, and was declined by Graeme Bartlett. There were other drawn out attempts to discuss the issue with you from Narky Blert and Lithopsian, which would be quite the opposite of "lazy". I will note that "multiple" attempts at speedy deletion of the same page would be disruptive because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. The correct way to seek deletion of a contested disambiguation page would be to nominate it at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You contested my deletion on invalid grounds and you never actually bothered to provide a sound reasoning. You refused to resolve the issue then and there, and your talk page afterward. Disambiguation pages only exist for ambiguous terms (WP:D), which 'Claidua Pulchra' is not. Avilich (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am disturbed by nom's statement "I've been trying to eliminate the page Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert (which also contains a history of this issue under my name). It strikes me as an attempt to force some sort of WP:POV onto a DAB page - which, per MOS:DAB, are "non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term". DAB pages are supposed to include misnomers and misspellings, to help readers get quickly and accurately to the article they're looking for. Any misunderstandings should be addressed in those articles, not by censorship of DAB pages and redirects. I object to nom's crusade to get this DAB page and these redirects deleted by any means they can find, for a reason I fail to understand. Information in Wikipedia should be as easy to find as possible.
I refer also to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 11#Claudia Pulchra (wife of Metellus), when an WP:RFD which included Claudia Pulchra (wife of Metellus) was closed as keep. What has changed in the last four months? Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed in the last four months? Several things. (1) I have more reasons to believe 'Claudia Pulchra' is not an ambiguous term and does not thus deserve a disambiguation page (per WP:D), which I already entered into detail but you ignored. (2) I found out you lied twice (here and here) about the content of a source in order to make the issue sound controversial. Avilich (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I withdraw it, whatever... even if committing the same mistake twice when the answer was in front of you raises suspicion. Regardless, this double mistake of yours suggests you didn't belong there or here, because you have no idea what you're talkig about. 19:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Avilich (talk)
  • You want me to apologize for noting this, this and this? I'm not concerned about your motivations or whether or not you acted in GF, the truth is you weren't very knowledgeable about the matter, you were dodgy & unwilling to discuss it even after I reached out to you on your talk page, and you used falsehoods (non-intentionally, you say) to advance your case. I still don't know, to this day, what makes you so invested in this, why you think these particular entries are deserving of Wikipedia's attention, how they will benefit readers. I'm strongly convinced these entries are both incorrect and implausible; if Wikipedia doesn't allow them to be removed as easily as they were created, then we've got a problem greater than the civility and personal conduct of the sole editor who's trying to address the underlying problem. Avilich (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: please look at the page logs, not just their histories. I had to restore the histories for many of these pages because they were deleted out of process. The scheme that the nom used to get them deleted worked like this:
  • They would retarget the pages they wanted deleted to a related page.
  • They then marked the unobserved new target for proposed deletion.
  • After the new target was deleted, all the redirects pointing there would be deleted as WP:G8 speedy candidates.
  • As a final step, they recreated the PRODed page, so nothing appeared amiss.
Like I said, sneaky stuff. - Eureka Lott 18:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does allow one to ignore the rules when these are in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I think I deleted them all (or most) directly through a single PROD, I do not recall systematically using speedy delete here specifically. I'm also not aware of how exactly page histories work. The rest seems true enough. Avilich (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is not an invitation to WP:GAME the system. You know what the policies and guidelines are, yet consistenly try to evade them. If you insist on doing that, it's going to create problems for you. - Eureka Lott 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you needn't worry, because I never 'thwarted the aims of Wikipedia'. The only thing I did consistently – which has actually nothing to do with the case at hand – was G7. It was reverted only rarely, which I thought was just some random annoying rule-literalist with nothing better to do. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't used it for awhile and don't plan on using it again in the future. Avilich (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for you to ignore any rules here. You want a disambiugation page and/or several redirects deleted, and there is a simple process to go about doing that (WP:AFD for disambiguations and WP:RFD for redirects). -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 3 times I tried doing this I was faced with editors (including you) who misrepresented sources to advance their point; not only did they not retract their deceptive statements, they also left their misleading oppose/keep vote unchanged to mislead whoever comes to assess consensus and close the discussion later. I've also had my edits consistently reverted w/o reason in order to create a false impression of controversy. Your colleague also claims it's disruptive to ever, ever open more than one discussion on the same subject. You can see how hard this is. Avilich (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not care whether or not these redirects are "correct", so you saying over and over again that sources are being misrepresented means absolutely nothing to me. Redirects are simply navigational tools, no more, no less. Thousands of incorrect redirects exist, and they are useful to guide readers to the article on the subject of the misnomer, and ideally they can learn why they are mistaken from reading the target article. And yes, having the same discussion over and over again is absolutely disruptive ("ever" is a bit of an exaggeration though, it's okay to rehash old discussions after considerable time or new information). At some point you are going to have to drop the stick and move on. -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said by multiple people above, these redirects have confused several readers and editors alike (including myself) rather than serve as navigational tools. Nobody will think to type or visualize this unless Wikipedia encourages them to commit this error. For someone who doesn't care, you are unusual in going out of your way to ensure these are preserved so posterity can be misled by them. Avilich (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you have repeated your position several times now (even in replying to a further !vote). I hear your argument but I do not agree with it. I believe these are useful redirects so I care about preserving them. Please stop bludgeoning the process. -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, impossible for any reader or editor without those magic glasses possessed by admins to untangle. Narky Blert (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So magical that all it takes to own a pair is to get ~70%+ of people to think you'll look good in them! -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clodia Pulchra (wife of Augustus) and Clodia Pulchra (wife of Metellus): they are redirects resulting from page moves, which should generally be kept. Undelete Clodia Pulchra (wife of Octavian): also because the page was moved away from there; it should not have been speedy-deleted. Mostly neutral on the other cases: There is a reasonable argument that adding Pulchra is a plausible search term (since nomen+cognomen could have been used for women in the time period, or at least readers may reasonably believe so), while there is also a reasonable argument that adding Pulchra is novel or obscure (since the people are referred to as Claudia in the literature, so readers coming from there would be unlikely to search for Claudia Pulchra). Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason people may 'reasonably' add the extra cognomen is because they saw it on Wikipedia iteslf, because a single editor five years ago created them. Wkipedia shouldn't actively encourage mistakes. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2021 (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.

"North Carolina Press Association"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. The nom is correct that these technically did not qualify for speedy deletion, but that's what WP:IAR is for and I noted the reasoning in the deletion log. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos (not recently created so ineligible for speedy deletion). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G6 as unambiguously created in error. edit summaries by the article creator make it clear these were typos, and the article was only at this title for 20 mins. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2021 (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.

Deceased inventor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Deceased inventor

Infravision[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 redirect to Wikt:infravision. Since the proposition of the alternatives and relisting, discussion has swung to support soft redirection. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect as no longer useful. Target article used to have a section describing infravision, but it was removed so the redirect is just confusing. Also before being a redirect this article covered the topic, but because it has no current references it was reverted when I restored it. Diego (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target as outlined above, after restoring the deleted material noted above. BOZ (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unfamiliar with the game usage, but "infravision" in my experience more commonly refers to "infrared vision", or vision at infrared wavelengths. If there are multiple usages, then this should become a disambiguation page. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • —"infravision" on Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • —"infrared vision" on Wikipedia. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make an interesting case, although people at WP:WPDAB would freak out at a disambiguation page linking to a single Wikipedia article. I'll try to work out a page complying with the rules of WP:PRIMARYRED. My main concern is not having a page that directs readers to an article where the topic is not covered at all, but a DAB page which briefly describe the meaning could work. Diego (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.D. I've boldly turned the page into a disambiguation, but now the template shows an error for it not being a redirect. Should I remove the template already, or revert the DAB page until a decision is made? Diego (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Diego Moya: I've repaired the template, with your draft DAB following it. Adding a draft to a redirect during RFD is encouraged; you just failed to get the editing quite right, no worries. Narky Blert (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to D&D. add redirects here and hatnote to infrared vision. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to D&D (preferably to a refined target) and hatnote to infrared vision.
"Infravision" has four closely-related meanings in D&D (non-WP:RS links): an inherent ability of some races, a spell and a potion which confer the ability as a temporary effect, and a few artefacts which confer the ability as a permanent effect while equipped. IMO we should cover it somewhere, but it definitely does not deserve a standalone article. The spell is widely considered to be the most useless in the whole arcane spellbook, and the best use of the items is to sell them. Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring/refining as a redirect isn't appropriate as the target article doesn't have any relevant content. Maybe such content can be (re)added, but that should be somewhere else – maybe a lower-level D&D article, or some new Night vision in fiction? Disambiguation is tempting, but apart from the D&D meaning, there's only one other entry – for Infrared vision. Is infravision ever used to mean that?, I couldn't find any sources during a quick search. Unless something new comes up, I believe the only viable options are deletion, and – preferably, in my opinion – provisional soft retargeting to Wiktionary: wikt:infravision provides a brief definition of the term and so far seems like the least of all evils. – Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further discussion of the proposed alternatives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary seems like the best option in the absence of any remaining content about this subject on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changing !vote) With no good D&D-related target, soft redirect to Wiktionary. Narky Blert (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2021 (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.

GeorgeNotFound[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Given that the page is now an article, it is up to the AfD to discuss whether the page should be redirected or deleted. (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeNotFonud is not "Dream". This redirect is misleading, as it gives the impression that this person is Dream, when in fact, he is not. (WP:RDEL number 10) JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) (strong delete)[reply]

  • No opinion on whether the redirect should be kept but I'd support retaining it and redirecting it to Dream SMP if that ever gets out of draftspace. GeorgeNotFound is mentioned in the Dream article as another related YouTuber. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. The current target contains basically no information about this person, just a passing mention that they made a video together at some point. There has been a huge amount of disruptive editing in the page history, such as attempts to turn this into an unsourced BLP, and it seems to have become a bit of a sock magnet, so I think EC create protection would be appropriate. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (STRONG) Keep as a redirect – there's a number of popular YouTubers (who users often search for) whose careers are related to Dream but aren't incredibly independently notable outside of Dream. However, since they're a related topic (mentioned in the article), they should definitely stay redirected to Dream's article, which has information relevant to any readers looking to read about these specific YouTubers mostly-notable because of association with Dream. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are both different youtubers and his name is literally only mentioned once in the entire article, I don't see why this redirect even exists. max20characters 🇺🇸 19:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not very experienced in this sort of discussion, but I'm under the impression that redirects for subtopics of an article are common and not really a problem. If someone is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, I see nothing wrong with having a redirect from that person's name to the article that discusses them. I don't think that the existence of a redirect implies that the redirect name is synonymous with the main topic of the article. {{R to subtopic}} exists for such cases (and others such as {{R from song}}), and WP:DAB discusses them. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2021 (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.

Alibi (Bradley Cooper song)[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 kept. withdrawn by original nominator (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one entry which is a redirect. No navigational help. Richhoncho (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nomination. Should have checked the position. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this nomination, specifically the meaning of "Only one entry which is a redirect". Could you clarify what it is you are trying to say? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's nothing wrong with redirecting a track to its parent album (which is the case here) and this title is mentioned within the target. In fact, that's quite a common practice when the song doesn't warrant a separate article. I don't see any problems here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (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.

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs)[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 Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of an amateur team at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention or other justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2021 (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.

Fent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Fent

II[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 Move II (disambiguation) to II. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term "II" is extremely broad and can refer to a variety of things. 54nd60x (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the dab page at II (disambiguation) to the base title. There's no real mention of the roman numerals in the target (they're listed in the info box and in a bullet point) and a google search turns up a complete mix of results. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 2 a primary topic for "II"? It probably was for the Romans, but III, IV, etc. suggest it's not now. Move dab to base name. Certes (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to II (disambiguation) 54nd60x (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a primary topic so I'd support a move of the disambiguation page over to the primary title (ideally to the lower-case Ii per WP:DABNAME). I'm not sure if this won't need a formal RM though: normally, well established pages shouldn't be moved without an RM, but I don't think there's much at stake here, so escalating to a different discussion venue may seem like overkill. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DABNAME says that When no word can be formed, all capitals is preferred. Does ii qualify as a word? Most of the dab entries use two capitals. Certes (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording of that guideline is hopelessly bad, but my understanding is that by "word" it means 'non-acronym'. There are a few dab entries that are neither acronyms nor numerals, like the Finnish municipality or the Japanese topics. – Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move II (disambiguation) to II, preserving the capitalisation (a question better left to WP:RM; it seems potentially controversial). Adumbrativus (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2021 (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.

Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral

Globe (Earth)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Globe (Earth)

Questionable[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 redirect both to their respective Wiktionary entries. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question is about questions as a linguistic concept. wikt:questionable means dubious/problematic. The meaning of the word is unrelated to the topic of the article. It just has a superficial orthographic similarity. If I had to redirect this somewhere, something like doubt would be a better target, but really I think it should just be deleted per WP:NOTDIC. Colin M (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt since these do appear to be used [1]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect these to their respective Wiktionary entries per Shhhnotsoloud. These give a more direct meaning than the current target offers-why would we want to inconvenience all those readers listed? Regards, SONIC678 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per prior. Vaticidalprophet 06:03, 16 April 2021 (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/2021_April_15&oldid=1021334901"