Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2021.

Pranay Sanklecha[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 List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. There is universal agreement that the current cross-namespace redirect is undesirable. The borderline notability of these players lead to the possibility that they might warrant full articles at some point (suggesting a red link is preferable) but a clear majority of participants consider the list entry to be the best option at this time. ~ mazca talk 13:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting cross-namespace to a category page seems irrational; all of them are mentioned at List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. I suggest retargeting them there (and probably unlinking them in the list), tagging them as {{R with possibilities}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as {{R to list entry}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the WikiProject been informed of this? (I'll do so now.) I'm totally ignorant about cricket. Are these at all equivalent to college athletes in the US, i.e., that they were full-time Oxford students while playing for the team? If so, and they've since gone into other fields, retargeting as proposed seems fine. If they're professional cricketers (either while with Oxford or now) and are otherwise notable, REDLINK deletion indeed sounds better. The key question: are we likely to ever have standalone articles on any of these people? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix and WP:RFD#DELETE, item 10. - Eureka Lott 02:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested, which is an accepted alternative to deletion for people who played first-class cricket but for whom little in the way of details can be found. The list can be developed to add some detail in the way of notes etc... at some point in the future (along the lines of List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players, List of English cricketers (1772–1786) or maybe List of Leeds/Bradford MCCU players). In almost all cases people who play for these sorts of side are not and will not be professional cricketers, although they may, of course, end up being notable for something else as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: On a quick search, all of these cricketers look like club level cricketers, who have made 1 or 2 university appearances (but wouldn't pass WP:GNG). So redirect seems sensible, and add them to the list article if they don't already exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 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.

Black Friday (2007 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. I'll add the suggested hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect leads to a completely different film from 2004, Black Friday (2004 film) (IMDb). Redirect should be deleted altogether I think. Both are mentioned on Black Friday too. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No strong opinion, but at present leaning towards keep. The 2004 film about a topic of significance for India had a delayed release in India until 2007. The other forgettable 2007 made for cable TV film pales in comparison. As there are at present numerous links to the 2007 redirect (though many are through Template:Anurag Kashyap), I'm inclined to keep the redirect and use a hatnote on the target -- at least until links to the 2007 redirect are cleaned up. If these links are resolved, I'd be OK with retargeting to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Bkonrad's reasoning and the three-year delay in the film's release. Some people might still search it that way as well. Regards, SONIC678 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting on the basis that both keeps were weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote {{redirect|Black Friday (2007 film)|the film also known as also known as The Kidnapping|Arthur Allan Seidelman}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 9 February 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.

Stats grok[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Just not plausible. Note that in the 30-day period before nomination, one of these had one view, and the other had none! --BDD (talk) 17:25, 15 February 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.

28-3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#28-3

Fus Roh Dah[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually another article mentioning this relation, so the correct way forward would be to mention it in the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no uses of the phrase anywhere on Wikipedia. There are two with the spelling "fus ro dah", but neither are suitable for retargeting. (N.b., the "ro" spelling is correct, but if we keep the phrase in any context, "roh" is a reasonable variant.) --BDD (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The proper phrase is "fus ro dah", so this is unnecessary. We don't really need redirects of typos of minor trivia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very well known element from the game, so if we have nothing to say about it, there's no real loss from deletion. Any reader inclined to search for it would know to just type in "Skyrim" if they wanted the game generally. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 15 February 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.

Spoliation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Spoliation

Beer Gut Putsch[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the article. This term appears to have been used in a few blog posts and political cartoons and got a chuckle out of me, but I'm not seeing enough use in RS to support the redirect. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and ask everyone to stop creating silly redirects for that page. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "Beer Belly Putsch" seems to be more common (and has a better flow), but please, everyone, don't create another silly redirect. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment by Chrisahn -- Please stop this insanity. Best, IP75 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable joke. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fringe, non-notable joke by cartoonists and bloggers. Nothing encyclopedic. RopeTricks (talk) 22:06, 9 February 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.

Roadmonster[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results don't suggest that this is an alternative name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable slang term. --Sable232 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an alternative name for the Buick line of cars. CZmarlin (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I am seeing a few uses of this they mostly relate to the title of a Car Talk episode.[1] There is no list of episodes, no mention of this episode in particular nor any use of "Roadmonster" on Wikipedia that I can find so there is no useful target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 9 February 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.

Prosperity-gospel[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 Prosperity theology. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exact duplicate of the redirect Prosperity gospel but with an unneeded hyphen. There are no links to it and no article on Wikipedia has the term "Prosperity-gospel" stylized with an hyphen, so it should be deleted. Note that if for some reason it is decided not to delete this redirect, its target should change to the more accurate Prosperity theology article, rather than the current one which is about a movement. Bezrat (talk) 17:06, 8 February 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.

Anna Pavilion End[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 M. A. Chidambaram Stadium. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect which does not seem to have any article which it could be targeted to. DigitalChutney (talk) 15:33, 8 February 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.

San fernando valley state college[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. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is from a title that isn't correctly capitalised. There's already a redirect from San Fernando Valley State College to the article about the college under its new name, so this one is superfluous. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:30, 8 February 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.

.NET[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 .net (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to change the redirect target from .NET Framework to .net (disambiguation), as there is no primary topic for .NET. Since 2019, the current redirect is a violation of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; see Google Trends for a comparison of .NET Core and .NET Framework. intforce (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to .net (disambiguation) per nom. In addition to the two presented uses of .NET, also note that some .net websites are stylized as .NET. ComplexRational (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and ComplexRational. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I already mentioned in the recent discussion, the .NET Core article should be renamed to .NET as this is the current and official name of this software. This is what most people will expect to get to when looking for .NET. .NET Framework is only the legacy framework that will be used less and less in the future. The .net disambiguation should stay as it is and can point to both implementations. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, but there does not seem to be a consensus for that yet. So this can be seen as an intermediary step. Perhaps in a few months (with increasing adoption of .NET (Core)), a clearer consensus will form. intforce (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not see this as a particularly valuable interim step and ultimately this is not the right thing to do anyway. With regard to things related to ".NET", I want to see three things:
    1. a .NET platform article that focuses on everything related to the software platform spearheaded by Microsoft, including non-Microsoft developed implementations such as Mono, etc. Being akin to something like Java (software platform), I believe something like .NET (software platform) would be the most appropriate article title for such and it could be created as a move/merge of some of the existing articles (saving their long article development history, etc.) such as .NET Framework and/or .NET Core, etc.
    2. a Microsoft branding article akin to Pentium for everything ".NET" related to Microsoft including things that are not related to the software platform e.g., the history of things like .NET My Services, .NET Passport, .NET Messenger Service, Visual Studio .NET, Visual Studio .NET 2003, Visual Basic .NET, etc.. I believe .NET is the most appropriate article title for that (with potential redirects such as .NET (brand), etc.) and it could perhaps be created based upon Microsoft .NET strategy.
    3. a generic disambiguation page. I believe this can adequately be covered/developed at .net (disambiguation) or .NET (disambiguation)
In summary, I believe this requires two new articles: one for the software platform and one for Microsoft brand. I believe it is foolhardy to consider interim steps that just move some of the existing articles or change redirects without clearing writing both the platform and the brand articles. I sincerely believe .NET should be the branding article and not the platform article. Hiding the (albeit dated) branding concept under a longer obscure article name such as Microsoft .NET strategy just seems wrong. —Uzume (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to create those articles you propose. In the meantime, the redirect should be retargeted, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT alone. The arguments you make carry no weight in that regard. intforce (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already voted my opposition to this proposal before being relisted here and I still believe .NET most generally refers the Microsoft branding strategy and I propose instead to either redirect to Microsoft .NET strategy or even better move that to .NET and invert the redirecting. In the end, it of course deserves a disambiguation hatnote for the .NET platform and other disambiguation (everything else .NET not related to Microsoft). I am well aware of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT but my argument is that .NET Framework does not represent the primary topic article related to .NET (this was conceded in the proposal) but a Microsoft .NET branding article like Microsoft .NET strategy does qualify as a primary topic for .NET. As such, I am opposed to redirecting .NET to .net (disambiguation). —Uzume (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uzume: Can you back up your claim that .NET most generally refers the Microsoft branding strategy? As far as I can see, the Microsoft .NET strategy has been deprecated for almost 20 years. Making that the primary topic makes absolutely no sense at all. As I mentioned, the only .NET thing with a future, going forward, is .NET Core, which has already been officially renamed to just ".NET". When .NET Framework's death finally comes, it will be natural to move .NET Core to .NET. In the meantime, it should redirect to a disambiguation. intforce (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Intforce: Can you find a more general meaning for ".NET"? The most general concept related to ".NET" seems to be its branding (I agree "general" and "primary" are not the same thing). There are plenty of things that have been dead for 20 years that are still historically notable (and have articles and redirects here). That said, it could be argued that the branding is still alive and just refocused on things related to the software platform. I believe .NET and Microsoft .NET should refer to the same thing and Microsoft .NET has redirected to Microsoft .NET strategy since 2018. In light of Microsoft's renaming of .NET Core to just .NET with the November 2020 release of ".NET 5", I agree an argument could be made for .NET to refer generically to the software platform, however, we do not currently have a generic article about the software platform (though I believe it could be constructed from our existing content). Regardless of whether .NET "primarily" refers to the software platform or the branding strategy, I do not believe redirecting to the generic disambiguation page is the right thing to do. I can find no evidence that the all caps .NET has ever notably referred to anything that was not Microsoft related and as such should remain Microsoft related here and not redirected at a generic ".net" disambiguation page. This is my argument for opposing such a proposal and counter-proposing .NET should follow Microsoft .NET. —Uzume (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uzume: You are not getting the point. The point is: .NET Core and .NET Framework, the two primary topics on .NET, are not related to the dated Microsoft .NET strategy, at least not anymore. Hence it makes no sense to redirect .NET there. .NET should redirect to .net (disambiguation), until a more universal article on Microsoft .NET is established. If you insist on such an article, why don't you rework Microsoft .NET strategy into Microsoft .NET, something that encompasses all topics on .NET? intforce (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Intforce: I might do something like that at some point (unfortunately I haven't the time to properly devote towards that right now). That said, you are not getting the point. The point is there is a more appropriate primary target for .NET, i.e., the branding article. I understand you maintain that the software platform is the most appropriate target and whether that is true or not is a different concern. If you want .NET to represent the software platform, why don't you develop it into such instead of redirecting it to the general dab page (because clearly redirecting it is not the right thing to do regardless of whether .NET primarily represents a branding strategy or a software platform)? —Uzume (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uzume: The point is there is a more appropriate primary target for .NET, i.e., the branding article There is no basis for this claim. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT make this very clear: when readers go to .NET, they are either expecting .NET Core or .NET Framework and therefore should be redirected to a disambiguation. This is backed by Google Trends and Ngram Viewer. Clearly redirecting it is not the right thing to do That is your opinion, and neither the guidelines nor consensus seem to be on your side. intforce (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uzume: I have moved your comment over to here, where future comments should be placed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per ComplexRational. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 15 February 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.

Wroung Road[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unused implausible misspelling of "Wrong Road" which only got 3 page views in the last year. This is pointing to Thomas and Friends as that show has an episode with the name "Wrong Road", but that episode isn't mentioned at the target article or anywhere else in wikipedia. There is a dab page at Wrong Road, but one of the two entries is a link to the episode of Thomas and Friends that is not mentioned at the target. There was an article at the location for approx. 6 months in 2005, but it was moved to Wrong Road then turned into a redirect in 2006 following an AfD nomination. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the episode of Thomas and Friends episode has an entry at Thomas & Friends (series 2). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 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.

COMMONNAME[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, retarget to Common name (disambiguation). Numerically there is a bit more "delete" votes over "retarget". However, a few of them were specifically in opposition to an XNR or project-space target, which is resolved with the retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Common name (disambiguation), which includes links to both the Wikipedia policy and relevant articles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. The only time anyone is likely to put this in all capitals and as all one word is when trying to indicate a Wikipedia policy. In normal English it is two words, and would not be in all capitals.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the ip. We should generally prefer targets in the same namespace where possible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not properly invoke the WP pseudo-namespace. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete avoiding breaking links unnecessarily is good, but last August is still pretty recent, so I'm fine with deleting it. Consistency, while useful, does not need to take priority over existing links. (edited to switch to Delete per Station1) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was created only last August, has a total of only 28 views since then, has no incoming mainspace wikilinks and is a term used only within the WP universe. It does not belong in mainspace. Station1 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTUS. Nardog (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Common name (disambiguation), as our own use of this makes it plausible for someone to search for it. BD2412 T 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD; the proposed new target has a hatnote pointing to WP:COMMONNAME, so this addresses the XNR issue without breaking usability for any editor stumbling upon it. — The Earwig talk 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's vaguely plausible that someone is simultaneously suffering "I don't know what the capslock key is" disorder and "I don't use the spacebar" syndrome, we should not create an RfD precedent to keep mainspace redirs that match WP shortcuts just because there's something kinda-sorta analogous to which to send them. They should only be retained when they clearly and without need for multiple typographic corrections correspond to real-world topics, e.g. SPAM, AFD. I.e., I would keep commonname and COMMMON NAME as mainspace redirs (though probably to Common name not a DAB page) because they are plausible single-problem typos for "common name".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Common name (disambiguation) as suggested by IP86 and BDD, which is clearly what someone typing this is looking for Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Common name (disambiguation) and tag as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Inexact and ambiguous redirects to WP:PTOPICs should be tightly controlled, and if possible avoided. A colleague who specialises in fixing bad links routinely checks Eagles; there are often a few intended for the band or the football team. Narky Blert (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Do not redirect to a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense does the Common name disambiguation page not disambiguate searches for COMMONNAME? If someone is looking for this exact capitalisation and spacing they will find a link, if they are not they'll find a link to whatever other use they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the sense that none of the entries at Common name (disambiguation) are of the capitalised and non-spaced form. Neither are any of them known by the non-spaced form. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If they are literally looking for COMMONNAME then the self-referential hatnote will take them to where they want to go. If they've typoed COMMON NAME then everything else on the dab page is directly relevant - i.e. their search is ambiguous and whatever it is they are looking for will be found at that target. In contrast, inviting people to create an article or search for other uses is not helpful to anybody and even those who do end up with search results directly will have an inferior experience to that they would get had they gone straight to this page - a strict interpretation of the letter of guidelines is actively harmful here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This redirect is not good enough to be a cross-namespace redirect. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too recent. It's one thing to grandfather in old uses, quite another to implicitly encourage new ones. WP:PANDORA is usually of limited value, but really does apply here. (N.b., The "per BDD"s above should be "per BD2412", as this is my first comment in this discussion. I'm always flattered by the confusion, however.) --BDD (talk) 16:03, 15 February 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.

Children of holy roman emperor francis i and maria theresa of austria[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 Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor#Issue. I'll do the same with the correctly capitalized version. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exact duplicate of another redirect with the same name, Children of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I and Maria Theresa of Austria, only it is misspelled with lower-case letters. It was created by a bot for some (accidental) reason apparently. Bezrat (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as plausible, correct and harmless. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dominicmgm and tag as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Absolutely no reason or benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. CrazyBoy826 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete per the others, but instead retarget to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor#Issue which almost seems purpose-built for this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with the tag and the retarget suggestion (because currently the redirect is broken). Apparently lower-case page duplicates are more useful and common than I initially thought, though the options for such pages become endless so some criteria would be needed. Bezrat (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is needed on the retargeting suggestion that was made immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 8 February 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_February_8&oldid=1008472521"