Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2021.

AR^[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. ✗plicit 03:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came close to requesting R1 speedy deletion on this, but I'll grant that if someone's holding the shift key for "AR" they might fail to release it in time for "6" and, on a standard QWERTY, wind up with this. That said, I think maintaining redirects like this for every letter-number combination would be quite WP:COSTLY, and don't think it's something we should get in the habit of. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Although potentially a helpful redirect I can see the reasoning for WP COSTLY. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many people reading English Wikipedia use different keyboards anyway e.g. on my Turkish keyboard it would be AR& Chidgk1 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 31 August 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.

Cat-sized[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 13:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both an implausible search term and an unhelpful target. (That a cat is cat-sized is trivial.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Winston (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is useful for getting the precise measurements of a generic cat when an article uses the phrase "cat-sized" to describe the attributes of another animal, as was when I created the redirect. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But is cat-sized a common term, or is it as arbitrary as (insert animal name)-sized? I feel like it should be a "legit" term, otherwise all sorts of phrases which are otherwise unnotable could be redirects. Winston (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: This redirect is an implausible search term that was recently created. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible and unhelpful indeed. CycloneYoris talk! 07:25, 1 September 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.

Afghan withdrawal[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 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to any number of withdrawals from Afghanistan throughout history, including those of various International Security Assistance Force members since 2010. Better to let the search results handle it, I think. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question. I think that currently this is a useful redirect, especially since there's also a hatnote (which could always be expanded) in the article, but in the long term it should eventually be deleted or disambiguated unless a consensus is reached that the current withdrawal is the most likely meaning. Are temporary redirects a thing? Winston (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could be ambiguous. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to say for now. Giving the calamity of the situation at present and the likelihood that this withdrawal is the one searched for. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way too vague to be attributed to the most recent U.S. Troop withdraw. ––FormalDude talk 23:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Afghan withdrawal" means that Afghans withdrew from somewhere, which is not what the target page is about. I also doubt this redirect could become a disambiguation, maybe it could if it was called "Withdrawal from Afghanistan" instead. Super Ψ Dro 10:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading and vague. Better to let search results do their thing, as the nom correctly suggests. CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 1 September 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.

Climate accords[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 Climate change#International climate agreements. ✗plicit 03:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to the Copenhagen Accord or the Marrakech Accords, probably among others. I could see a case for a DAB page, but my inclination is delete and let the search results handle it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:10, 24 August 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.

Osborne's band[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. Delete at page creator's request Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Osborne" here is a misspelling of Osbourne, as in Ozzy Osbourne. However, even with the correct spelling this would meet criteria for deletion: Osbourne has performed with a number of bands, and if anything "Osbourne's band" would more likely perform to any of his backing bands as a solo artist over the years. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it could refer to his backing band. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:15, 25 August 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.

Zappa's band[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. Delete at page creator's request Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on him, Frank Zappa was in a number of bands. While none was nearly as notable as the Mothers of Invention, it's still inaccurate to call that definitively "Zappa's band". Judging from Google results, this does not appear to be a case where the term is used as a nickname or alias for the band either. Delete or retarget to Frank Zappa. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:02, 24 August 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.

Bloody vagina[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Bloody vagina

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 2#Paid advocacy

Template:R from initials[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Template:R from initials

[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 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the spelling error, this concept seems to be much broader than just Wikipedia. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: Any objection to me bundling the correctly-spelled Paid advocacy? Or would you rather I file separately? There's also Paid advocacy on wikipedia (capitalization sic); not sure whether to bundle that. (Both point to the same target as this one.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tamzin: - Personally, I'd likely support keeping the wikipedia-specific one, as the capitalization isn't that problematic and it's not overly vague. There may be a potential retargeting point for the correctly spelled paid advocacy, so I'd personally go with handling that one separate, as this one is both an error and ambiguous, while the other is just ambiguous. The ambiguity might be fixable by retargeting, but the error is not fixable by retargeting. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This redirect's target would surprise the average reader. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Typo, the correctly spelled one would show up in search first. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:23, 28 August 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.

Ella French[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Ella French

Bloody rag[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. ✗plicit 03:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly the only possible explanation for a bloody rag, delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 24 August 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.

Slumdogland[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 deleted by Drmies per G10. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be in use as an alternative name for India. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Racist. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect. Potentially racist connotations aside, India has been the setting of movies like Slumdog Millionaire (from which the "Slumdog" part might come) but that also isn't reason enough to call the country "Slumdogland." Regards, SONIC678 21:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G10, racist attack page; wikt:slumdog defines the term as a person who lives in a slum. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete, possibly speedily under criterion G10. Seems to be a derogatory name that the redirect creator has made up themselves, I can see no evidence of it actually being in use. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 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.

Dioicy[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. There is clear consensus that this redirect should not be deleted. If the underlying content dispute still has loose ends to tie, feel free to continue that discussion at the target's talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article has been made for this so there is no need to have a redirect. Link to article in works.CycoMa

So this redirect probably should be deleted.(talk) 16:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dioecy is not the same topic as Dioicy. Plant reproduction is weird. Dioicy refers to free-living haploid plants (gametophytes) that support a diploid sporophyte (mosses, basically). Dioecy refers to free-living diploid sporophytes that support a haploid gametophyte (non-mosses, basically). I'm not at all convinced that it is necessary to split out separate articles for the "mono" and "dio" conditions for each (e/i)cy; mono and dio can be contrasted within a single article. However, for the sake of this RFD, I accept the split in good faith; whether it should stand can be discussed elsewherePlantdrew (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tagged redirect since it was missing an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/history merge I'm not involved with AfC, but surely there is a standard procedure for usurping redirects with new articles about the topic of the redirect, that doesn't involve taking the redirect to RFD? If there isn't a standard procedure, merge the existing history of the redirect into the draft and publish the draft (I suppose publish the draft first, then history merge, but I'm not certain about the best order of actions). Plantdrew (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Plantdrew: I am involved with AfC, I'll shed some light. The draft can't be moved to the desired title because it is occupied currently by the redirect. Only a page mover or admin would be able to publish this draft right now. When this happens, there are two courses of action: list the move at WP:Requested moves, or (if the replacement of the existing page merits further discussion) nominate the existing page for deletion. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: Sorry but I'm striking your !vote. Since you're the nom you can't vote more than once. CycloneYoris talk! 08:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More discussion needed Several points:
    • At present Monoicous covers both "dioicy" and "monoicy". It's certainly right to move Monoicous from the adjective to a noun. As it covers both, it could be moved to either "Monoicy" or "Dioicy". It doesn't seem to matter much which is used.
    • I'm not convinced that it's sensible to split the coverage of "dioicy" and "monoicy". If there were two articles, each would have to explain the other concept, at least briefly, since they are the two main alternative sexual organizations of haploid plants. Any discussion of the evolutionary history, for example, has to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two. (CycoMa isn't really right to say that the Nature source treats them as separate things; it discusses how dioicy and dioecy evolved from monoicy and monoecy.) I would like to see a case made for the split first.
    • If there are to be two articles, at "Monoicy" or "Dioicy", then it's not simply a case of developing a draft for the "Dioicy" article and moving it to Dioicy; it has to be explained how the existing Monoicous article will be modified – it ought definitely then be moved to Monoicy.
Personally, I would move Monoicous to Monoicy with Dioicy a redirect to it, and then expand it. Ideal would be a title which includes all kinds of haploid plant sexual systems. "Haploid plant sexual systems" or "Sexual systems in haploid plants" is accurate, but somewhat clumsy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more sources on dioicy I just need some time to add more information to the draft. I do believe dioicy is notable for its own article.CycoMa (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe here’s a better idea maybe we change the name of the article monoicious to sexual systems in
Bryophytes.CycoMa (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: although the terms are used more for bryophytes, they apply to all haploid plants, e.g. the gametophytes of ferns. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could also tag more people who know a lot more about botany into this discussion.CycoMa (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Peter: the current article Monoicous covers both Dioicy and Monoicy, and presents a good start for further development. It should be eventually moved to Monoicy and dioicy: per WP:AND, we often cover complementary terms in a single article, and I don't see a compelling reason not to do that here (the situation with -ecy items is more complicated, with overview given at Sexual system). CycoMa, my suggestion is that you abandon the Draft:Dioicy and simply merge its contents into Monoicous. Since you are the sole substantive author of the draft, that would provide attribution to your name, and avoid complications with history merge. No such user (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a good amount of sources on the topic. I can make it be a decent size article.CycoMa (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer them covered in a single article, but OK, opinions differ. But as it stands now, the current Monoicy article (I just moved Monoicous) much better covers both topics than your Draft:Dioicy. I'm hesitant to replace the redirect with what is currently an incomplete regurgitation of the target's contents. "Can make it a decent size article" is a bit too much of m:Eventualism for my taste, particularly since we already have the topic at least modestly well covered. No such user (talk) 08:16, 26 August 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.

Opel Movano[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 set index-ify at Movano. This can, of course, be changed over time via regular editorial actions. For now, since Opel Movano has more substantial history, I'm moving that to Movano and having Vauxhall Movano redirect there. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New model for Movano is now a rebadged version of Fiat Ducato John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 04:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw, found out this one can be disambiguate and I'll do it myself --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 10:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done disambiguate the pages. Please close this.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 11:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @John123521: I was going to close after cleaning up the dabs a touch, but ran into something I'd like to resolve first: Is the 1/2/3 numbering for the Vauxhall and the A/B/C lettering for the Opel sourced somewhere? Neither article mentions them that way. If they haven't officially been called the 1/2/3 and A/B/C, seems it would be better to just say Vauxhall Movano has been the name of variants of several cars... and then name the other cars rather than numbering the versions of Vauxhall; ditto Opel. If they have been officially called that, the articles should say that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For Opel there is. Yet I don’t found anything for Vauxhall —John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 22:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That source establishes A and B, but I don't see anything definitive for C. Maybe better to just do both without reference to numbers/letters? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. I've changed both.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 14:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the above discussion, I think it's better for there to be a single SIA here rather than two DABs, given both the shared name and the need to explain the history of the naming to the reader. I've converted Opel Movano to a draft SIA. If I understand this correctly, Vauxhall Movano has only been an alternate name for Opel Movano, rather than a different series of cars. On that basis, I would suggest that we not close this, and instead SIAïfy at Opel Movano, retarget Vauxhall Movano there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set index, but at Movano, since it is available and can cover both Opel and Vauxhall without the need to choose one. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:30, 7 September 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.

Red monster[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. ✗plicit 03:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to primarily refer to Elmo. Hog Farm Talk 03:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most common meaning of this term on Google seems to be Monster Energy Ultra Red, but I doubt that's anywhere close to the majority meaning, when there's soooo many other things that could be called a "red monster". Delete for want of a good target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tazmin. Even though Elmo is a red monster, he isn't the only one (there's also the one from Adobe Character Animator and many others); and the term can refer to Monster Energy, Daisuke Matsuzaka (the redirect's original target for just over 13½ years before Usernamekiran changed it, but Matsuzaka's article doesn't mention the term), and just about anything else Tazmin alludes to. Regards, SONIC678 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonic678: yeah. I always thought the redirect was a lot better suited for Elmo over Matsuzaka. But to be honest, it is a little difficult to decide primary topic with a clear majority. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:12, 24 August 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.

Adult Books[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 Adult books (a disambiguation page). Well, we do not have consensus on a primary topic so the solution when there is not a primary topic is disambiguation. Interestingly, it looks like a majority of participants think there is a primary topic, with at least one person advocating for every option currently listed at the disambiguation page but no clear best option. I also find it interesting that I don't see a single bold "disambiguate" but there is a surprising level of appetite for disambiguation, especially in replies and "second votes". -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather obscure topic overshadowing a larger one. Qwirkle (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to sex shop, I'm sure readers who type this are likely referring to an adult bookstore. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 09:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think making it a disambiguation might be better. There are enough times when the term is used to distinguish between children’s books and adult books, children’s books and young adult books, or young adult books and adult books that would make accidental links misleading and embarrassing. Qwirkle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Erotic literature, I'm sure that's what a reader would mean. Gaioa (T C L) 18:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Erotic literature. Agree with Gaioa. Erotic literature is the first thing I thought of when considering the term Adult Books. Winston (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons in nom. Arguments for a redirect are misguided. This is "Adult Books" with both words capitalized, which can only be a title, not the concept of adult books. And no one has ever thought it necessary to create a redirect for "Adult books". Dan Bloch (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Danbloch. Adult fiction redirects to Fiction, hence making this redirect somewhat vague. I'll also reiterate that adult books with a lowercase 'b' does not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague for a retarget. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Adult Books (band) to Adult Books and add hatnote to Erotic literature and Los Angeles (X album). Adult Books (band) is the only article starting that way, and should not be disambiguated if it doesn't need to be. Per WP:DIFFCAPS, Adult books can be a dab for these three targets plus Sex shop (to which Adult bookstore points). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think Adult fiction is a common-sense retarget to Erotic literature, and will retarget it if no one objects before this RfD closes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That move makes sense, given the existence of Adult Books (band). The only hatnote needed would be on that page; not sure what you had in mind with the other two.
    "Adult fiction" actually does mean fiction for adults, not erotic fiction, so changing that redirect wouldn't be appropriate. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, by "add hatnote to" I meant "add hatnote pointing to". I agree there's no need for hats on the other pages. As to adult fiction, it seems that the term is used a variety of ways, so you're right, probably best to keep it pointing to Fiction as a suitable broad-concept target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Adult Books (band) to Adult Books to put the primary topic at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what makes it even more confusing is that Adult Books (band) is from Los Angeles, and the song by X is on an album titled Los Angeles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To anyone reviewing this, note that this discussion has been an evolving consensus, from retarget to delete to move, not a three-way debate. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion but no clear solution yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There absolutely is a clear solution already. Please take another look at the discussion. There were three votes to retarget, after which I pointed out that the page title was "Adult Books", not "adult books" so retargeting didn't make sense. After this there were no more votes to retarget and there were three votes to delete, at which point User:Tamzin pointed out the existence of an article Adult Books (band), which is the only candidate for an Adult Books page, so it should be moved to replace the current redirect. After this there were no more votes to delete and there were three votes to Move. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danbloch: But I'm not seeing any of the editors retracting their votes, and those who voted to retarget have not acknowledged that their vote was "wrong". So, there are still three votes to retarget, and that's why I decided to relist this. I would also like to remind you that even though I relisted this discussion, the relist is not an impediment for someone else to close this early (if they wish to do so). Per WP:RELIST: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. CycloneYoris talk! 03:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Qwirkle, Gaioa, Notsniwiast, Champion, and FormalDude: Sorry to ping all of y'all, but since we have an unusual !voting history here (three consecutive retarget, three consecutive delete (one struck), three consecutive move) over the course of a few weeks (with relists that mean this page is likely not on any of your watchlists), I was wondering if any of you have thoughts on more recent developments in this RfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm feeling old. This was a big song when I was in college so this redirect makes perfect sense to me. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Erotic literature, hatnote to the other options (adult fiction, song, band) or make a separate disambiguation. This would be consistent with Adult Film / Adult film / Adult Education / Adult education. Also the band and songs are more likely to be named after the erotic literature than adult fiction. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support making a separate disambiguation. ––FormalDude talk 03:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a disambiguation page at Adult books, and don't have strong feelings about either retargeting this there or moving Adult Books (band) over the redirect (DIFFCAPS allows, but certainly doesn't require, the latter). In looking into this, I also realized that X (American band) is a better place for information about the X song anyway, since—as far as I can tell from our articles—it was only included on the 2001 CD release of Los Angeles, whereas it was already a single in 1978. (Liz, feel free to fact-check me on this!)
I almost closed this myself, and hope I haven't made things any more difficult for the eventual closer! This feels like one of those discussions where I think there's more agreement than there first appears. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 3 September 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.

Wikipedia:NOTGAME[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:Wikipedia is not a video game, with thanks to Tamzin for the clever solution. I see this as analogous to replacing a redirect with an article. This seems to address the nominator's concern, and has few enough incoming links. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is usually used in the context of "Wikipedia is not a game" (vis-a-vis Huggle/RedWarn, m:WPWP, etc), however WP:NOT seems to say no such thing, at least not in the section linked to. It seems a classic case of using a shortcut where the target doesn't even remotely say what it's being used as. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a more suitable target can be found. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't believe I'm saying this but... delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a widely-expressed sentiment, and there should be an essay articulating it. Until then, one can make a point perfectly well by linking to a redlinked shortcut. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify policy and keep. The first bullet point does state that content hosting should not be used primarily for amusement, and that social bonding is allowed as long as it supports the purpose of building the encyclopedia but not on its own. This is what's usually understood when we say "Wikipedia is not a game"; but if the connection is not clear enough, let's just make it explicit by adding that WP is not a social game. Diego (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RfD is not the place to make policy. If an actual policy is proposed and added, then it should be recreated. But as the status quo stands, no such policy or essay exists, so this redirect shouldn't either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look closely, I didn't say we should make new policy. ;-) I said that we should keep the redirect because current policy already supports its usage as commonly understood. Diego (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Post the nomination, mention of social-network game has been added to the target. Would be interesting to know who was using Wikipedia for online gaming and when. This is best discussed at the target talk page, but some examples would help. Jay (Talk) 04:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MMORPG comes to mind, as a parody of the mindset of people using the project for fun. The redirect has been used in connection to ANI against using the project at the cost of other editors' time, so maybe those discussions could shed some light? Diego (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The mention at this discussion in particular seems relevant. Adding content in bulk to reach a high score may become disruptive, as it forces the project to asses its quality and see what can stand and what should be removed, instead of just adding acceptable content from the start. Diego (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would it not be better to put a policy amendment in something like Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, since the intent here seems to be more related to user conduct and users treating the site as a game, rather than article content? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I suppose a link to the WP:NOTHERE section would work, with its "Trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia" and "Dishonest and gaming behaviors" it would be more on point. Diego (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted a stub essay at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a video game, and welcome anyone to expand it. (I also wouldn't object to moving to just "... not a game", but I feel "video game" is how I see it said more often.) Striking my original !vote, and would instead suggest we retarget to that essay. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:49, 25 August 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.

Kalseru[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 13:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retargeted this after a merge, but there's no mention in the article, no existing citation and I cannot find a reliable citation for this as an alternative name (only a few mirrors of Wikipedia). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems to be one of the Rainbow Serpent's names as found here --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lenticel's points, this name is used. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Confusing term which is not mentioned at target. We shouldn't keep this unless someone adds a mention at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 24 August 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.

WNTC-FM[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 WNTC. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Sammi Brie with the reason "No incoming links. Needed as a red link from WNTC for a station that does not have an article." FASTILY 21:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an explanation, the current station with call sign WNTC-FM does not have an article but is linked as a redirect now from WNTC. This is a link to a prior user of this call sign. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WNTC. If there was ever a station with the call sign "WNTC-FM", this would be a valid redirect and should not be deleted. Of course, anyone is free to overwrite the redirect with an article, but until then it seems the best solution is to unlink the current station from the disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the correct location is for the page to redirect to WPDQ (FM) per the station's callsign history, there is another WNTC-FM waiting in the wings for that callsign. So, beyond a hatnote at the top of the WPDQ (FM) page, the redirect has to go to make room for a new page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is now (as of July 22nd) a station at this call sign; needs to be a redlink. Mlaffs (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WNTC as there are multiple FM stations on that disambiguation page that had the call letters. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:56, 27 August 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_August_24&oldid=1044131960"