Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2021.

Burgermeister Beer[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. Unopposed deletion request. Jay (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, nothing conclusive in an internet search. This Quora post suggests that Hamms and Burgermeister were two separate brands. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 28 November 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.

Cannibal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect has moved back and forth several times without discussion. I propose Human cannibalism as a more appropriate target as "cannibal" usually refers to a human, not an animal. Rublov (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it should point to cannibalism. The unqualified term is also used in non-human cases. Shark Week seems to spike it in social media also. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at its current target per 65. Although "cannibal" may often refer to human ones, it can refer to any organism that eats members of its own species. The hatnote to the nom's proposed target on the current one should help people looking specifically for cannibalism in humans. Regards, SONIC678 04:00, 29 November 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.

Cyanide gas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#Cyanide gas

List of geological features on Venus[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 all. Any entries in List of geological features on Venus which do not have their own article should be unlinked. Aervanath (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mass deletion: there are 261 rd's to this page. Of them, only List of planitiae on Venus and List of tesserae on Venus are useful. The other 259 have the sole purpose of preventing red links in the article. But red links are useful: they show readers the work that is still needed, and encourage them to do it. By turning all the red links blue, these rd's hide the lack of content on WP, and we are likely to miss the opportunity of readers creating articles for at least some of them. (Sorry about the error this request is generating, but I'm not about to add a RFD to 259 rd's.) — kwami (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the nomination and removed the error from the multi-select template, by adding the first item from the 259 entries. Jay (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects from the list page back to the list page, to hide red links for articles not yet created, is unhelpful. GeoWriter (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how many of these redlinks are actually sufficiently notable to have their own pages? Makes more sense to remove the links, but keep the redirects as useful search terms.Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Is there a way to see what the other RDs are? I generally agree with the idea that red links are useful, but I feel uncomfortable !voting on 259 redirects I don't know of. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all?) the blue links in the list article are self redirects. Polyamorph (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph: Not all. In the bottom half, the few blue links among the sea of red are actual articles. Presumably there are some of those among the sea of blue at the top, but I don't know which ones. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is simple. Just remove the self redirects. Per 1234qwer1234qwer4 below, to find all redirects to the list click the "What links here" button on the left hand toolbox Polyamorph (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The majority of these features are not notable. If some of them are notable, they should be nominated for deletion separately. Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In general these features are not notable. Redirection to a list of geological features is thus appropriate. The wikilinks in the list article are not appropriate and should be removed. I agree with Ruslik0, the redirects for specific features which may be notable should be discussed individually. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What of the remaining hundreds of red links? Should they also get rd's? And should the rd's be anchored to the entries, rather than just to the top of the list?
IMO it makes sense to keep the rd's and delete the links, or keep the links and del. the rd's, but not to keep both. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SELFRED, the page shouldn't include links to itself. If the features aren't independently notable, remove the links from the list, regardless of their color. - Eureka Lott 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The users above answer perfectly for me. Just remove the self redirects and red links (of non-notable entries) in the list. Polyamorph (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If List of planitiae on Venus and List of tesserae on Venus are useful, what about List of undae on Venus? Jay (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a List of feature-type on Venus redirect to a section for "feature-type", then it should probably be kept around -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: either all the nominated redirects should be tagged or this nomination should be procedurally closed. Without the tags, potential page-watchers have no way of knowing about this discussion. - Eureka Lott 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snood1205 Since Polyamorph's answer only described the containment links ⊆ redirects, which is pretty much irrelevant to your question since there may be other redirects: Special:WhatLinksHere. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and these meet none of the criteria on WP:RDELETE. The solution to the nominator's concern is to unlink them in the list article. Having said that, it does highlight a gap in the notability guidelines. WP:NGEO says that named natural features are by default notable, but explicitly states it applies only to Earth. WP:NASTRO says that named astronomical objects (e.g. asteroids) are by default not notable and should be redirected to the relevant list, but applies to whole bodies not features upon them. It's not obvious which is the more relevant guideline here, and therefore which of these redirects might get turned into full articles in future. Modest Genius talk 17:42, 14 December 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.

List of schools, colleges and universities[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 – retargeting to Lists of schools as the broader scope list. Editors are welcome to boldly change, re-organise or create lists and then retarget as appropriate. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. Implausible redirect of a worldwide list to a list in a specific location. Nothing now links to it, Bokaro, Jharkhand did but I've just fixed that. Redirect was left following a move. While this could become a DAB or a super long list that would probably be more of a problem that any sort of help Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:59, 28 November 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.

Classical supernova[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. MBisanz talk 04:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and this does not appear to be related to a classical nova according to the page history. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as I'm aware "classical" is not used as a descriptor for any type of supernova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketiltrout (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ketiltrout (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 13:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it is indeed used to described supernova types [1] [2] [3] ; classical as opposed to exotic supernovae. So I don't see a problem with the redirect leading tg the general article, which explains which ones are common and which are rare, thus explaining the situation. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per multiple sources, but the term needs to be added to the article with at least one source so people understand why they were redirected to that article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:DINC applies (even more so, in that the redirect is perfectly OK, and this would be cleanup/improvement of the target article...), and if there are sources which show this term is indeed used to highlight a meaningful distinction (such as those given above), then the solution is to use those sources, not delete the redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references provided by the 64 IP. CycloneYoris talk! 05:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is an actual concept, it can be mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per IP, SMC and RC. Huggums537 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete precisely per nom. Until or unless the term is added to the article, it continues to be unhelpful for searchers wanting to know what this term specifically means. -- Tavix (talk) 05:10, 10 December 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.

Samsung SGH-A167[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 Send to AfD. The article's creator and only substantial contributor would like it deleted, so WP:G7 would apply. However, given the alternative suggestion for merging, deletion is not uncontroversial any more. We're therefore deferring to the venue for discussing article deletions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung SGH-A167. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to article and send to AFD, if desired. The article was WP:BLARed about a month ago, and RFD shouldn't be used for backdoor article deletions. - Eureka Lott 19:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR and EurekaLott. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G7. I created the article ([4]) in good faith hoping more would come out of it but nothing ever materialized. I don't see why this needs to be prolonged any further as the phone is not notable for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you are not the only substantial contributor to the page this is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd actually be OK with a G7 deletion. I'm not seeing any significant additions by other editors. - Eureka Lott 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The requirement isn't "significant additions" but "non-trivial edits" and there is more than one of those. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G7, per EurekaLott. The requirement is substantial content, not "non-trivial edits". -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW (possibly not much), SGH-A167 is linked from Commons (e.g. File:Tuolumne County Courthouse Sonora CA.jpg). Might be useful to merge this and other non-individually-notable Samsung phone models to some list so that the bare model numbers can be made into {{R from file metadata link}}s. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and send to AfD Per Eureka Lott. I don't think there would be any issues on its deletion at AfD so it will still be deleted without having any WP:BLAR issues.. --Lenticel (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert and send to AfD deleting this redirect and therefore the article history is a circumnavigation of the AfD. So better to have the AfD instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Moved to more visible log for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:49, 28 November 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.

Lukács László[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 László Lukács. The consensus is actually to dabify using the disambiguation page currently at Draft:László Lukács. However, László Lukács is already occupied by the article about the prime minister. If the prime minister turns out not to be the primary topic, any editor can go ahead and make the necessary page moves. Aervanath (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I request to delete this redirect. None of the other band members redirect to this article. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation will help, by someone familiar with Hungarian name orders. Should it be at Lukacs Laszlo or Laszlo Lukacs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the dab be at the name used in the disambiguated article title: László Lukács. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: If it helps to get the closed, I have moved Draft:Lukács László to Draft:László Lukács per 1234's naming suggestion above. If it makes sense to move back, ping me or leave a message on my talk page please! snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:54, 8 December 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.

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne

125th station[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 trainwreck, with general consensus that some should be disambiguated. This has been open for two months and no one has made a comprehensive proposal of which should be disambiguated and which should be kept. Editors are encouraged to boldly disambiguate; likewise no prejudice against speedy renomination of single items. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are ambiguous search terms. They can either refer to the Xth station opened on a rapid transit system, the Xth station by ridership ranking, or the station on Xth street. feminist (+) 08:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maybe "2nd station" is ambiguous, but the others seem fine. Which station? / 31st would clearly refer to the 31st Street station, at least to me. The other interpretations don't have plausible redirect targets either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, somebody could read "96TH ST" as a sign in a subway station and misinterpret "ST" as an abbreviation for "Station". not sure I believe that's likely, though User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite likely for "Xth" to refer to the Xth station on a rail line, particularly for rapid transit systems in places where streets are not named numerically. feminist (+) 03:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This appears to be a naming convention for Chicago, eg: 51st station, 79th station. I haven't analyzed all of them but I think a fair solution would be to delete or disambiguate where it is ambiguous what the suffix may be. For example, 5th Street station and 5th Avenue station both have plenty of uses. If there is no suffix ambiguity, then keep. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig (or retarget to existing disambigs) where ambiguous, keep where unambiguous. "Xth station opened on a rapid transit system" and "the Xth station by ridership [or other] ranking" are not plausible search terms, other than perhaps 1st station, 2nd station and perhaps 3rd station for the first etc ever (railway) station, however "the station on Xth street" does seem to be a naming convention used in at least Chicago so that is the only usage that matters for ambiguity puposes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For low numbers, th station could refer to the th railway station opened in some random city and the number might not have any connection to street numbers in that city, if the streets are numbered at all.
"100th station" could maybe refer to something like Skarpnäck metro station as it was the 100th station opened in that network, but I don't think it's a plausible search term. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If something is a plausible search term for one thing and an implausible search term for another thing, then we can completely ignore the latter for the purposes of RfD. If someone wants to find the nth oldest railway station in a given place then it's reasonable to assume that they would at the very least include the name of that place in their search term, e.g. "4th London station", "250th Texas station", "1000th Russian station", etc. I decided to spot check a few at random with the search e.g. "116th station -Wikipedia" on google, in each case noting only the potentially relevant results on the first page:
  • 116th Station → multiple railway stations in New York and Cleveland, Ohio and a former hospital in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
  • 28th Station → multiple railway stations in New York and New Jersey
  • 42nd Station → one or more railway stations in New York and a shopping mall in Portland, Oregon
  • 30th Station → 30th Street Station, Philadelphia
  • 52nd Station → Railway station and Diner named after it in Philadelphia.
So, yes, these all exist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would everything 14th and under also be reasonably thought to refer to Stations of the Cross#Stations/Scriptural Way of the Cross/etc.? There's a capitalization issue there, to be sure, but I'm also not sure whether those are more or less likely than the above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Google results for "3rd station" (picked at random) have uses relating to stations of the cross as all but one of the results on the first page (the exception was 3rd Station, an album). So at the very least they should be included on disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The agreement so far is to keep non-ambiguous stations and disambiguate ambiguous ones. Of the 31 entries listed, 8 have ambiguity, and draft DABs can be created for those.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep where unambiguous, & Disambig (or retarget to existing disambigs) where ambiguous. (Per Thryduulf) .Bogger (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing anything other than mass deletion or keeping here would take a massive amount of work, and that's probably one reason this discussion has remained unclosed for so long. Naming stations sequentially isn't a thing where most of us live, but it does happen in some places. See for example the 69 Stations of the Nakasendō (or the other similar articles linked in its "see also"): while all of the stations have proper names, it does appear that at least sometimes they get referred to by the ordinal. If you search on Wikipedia for any given term, you'd get results similar to what Thryduulf has reported above of web searches. In principle, we can meticulously compile all such instances into disambiguation pages, but that's going to be a lot of work, and given that few (if any!) of our readers seem to use those search terms, that's not going to be of much benefit to the project. I'm inclined to think it would be best to let the search engine handle such queries: the current targets will remain easily accessible, and any other topics with the name will also be revealed (without the need for us to compile and look after a large number of obscure dabs). – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 25 December 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.

Dolores Rivera Candelaria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect - Keep Dolores Rivera Candelaria. (This person was mayor of Utuado at some point in history).[1] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Independence for Puerto Rico: Hearings, Apr. 23-May 8, 1945. 1945. p. 552. Retrieved November 11, 2021.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on closing: CycloneYoris closed this as No Consensus, and then self-reverted with comment There’s already consensus for deletion.. I should have mentioned this in my Relist comment that while The Eloquent Peasant voted Delete, the statement of the vote said Keep. Jay (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jay I think what they meant is that a mention needs to be added for the subject (that's why they provided the source) and that the redirect needs to be deleted. At least that's what I understood from their statement, and that's also why I immediately self-reverted my close. CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would we want to delete the redirect once a mention has been added to the target? Or did The Eloquent Peasant want to convert the redirect to a stub? We can add a mention to the target if there was a list of mayors of Utuado, or if the person did something mentionable as mayor. Jay (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes it's better to let the search engine do its job, and that's probably what they meant. Readers use other methods to search for article content, besides redirects; and leaving a WP:REDLINK does encourage article creation. CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for the confusion. I believe now that her article should be deleted. She should however be mentioned in the Utuado article. I don't believe a Stub is necessary. She was one of the signers of the P.R. Constitution and she was mayor however, I don't know if that meets notability since not all mayors of P.R. munis have articles.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:48, 6 December 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.

10.9mm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#10.9mm

Kernel (Computer Science)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect for improper title capitalization. Proper title capitalization exists at Kernel (computer science). No incoming links. SWinxy (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per WP:CHEAP. Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Qwerfjkl and WP:CHEAP. This redirect isn't hurting anything, and might occasionally be helpful. Regards, SONIC678 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Readers should not be expected to know Wikipedia's naming conventions. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from miscapitalisation}}. -- dylx 00:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and any other Rs from miscap where the miscap is within the disambiguator (and where there is no other good reason to keep). There is too great a maintenance cost to allow for a second (or more) redirect to be created for every redirect with a disambiguator in it. People searching this term will be automatically corrected to the correct capitalization regardless, Kernel (computer science), which targets the same page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is only true in some cases - it depends on the method you are using to look for the content. Also, what great maintenance cost? Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Every redirect's creation has a nonzero maintenance cost. There's the cost of someone reviewing it, then potentially of someone rcatting it, then there's the space it takes up for people patrolling Special:RandomRedirect or database reports, and the maintenance cost down the line if changes to rcat templates or MediaWiki itself require reworking something. To be clear, these are all miniscule costs, but it adds up. If the median redirect will take up 1 editor-minute over the course of its life (not counting the time invested by the creator), and there are 1,294,760 existing parenthetically-disambiguated redirects, then creating a miscapitalized twin to each would take up 2.5 editor-years worth of maintenance, and for very very little benefit. As SMcCandlish says, this is not a very plausible format for someone to search with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you think its worth spending a week of editor time getting consensus for deleting something that has an extremely trivial cost and non-trivial (even if small) benefit (which it does, even if you personally don't think people should search using this capitalisation they do)? If so then we are never going to agree. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I would not have personally brought this RfD. As seen above with the EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG RfD, I see a lot of redirects as "not worth creating, not worth deleting". However, in that case, keeping sets a precedent that would allow, at worst, ~5k new redirects. This precedent would allow three orders of magnitude more. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would not advocate creating all those redirects automatically, I see allowing those that people find useful enough to create to be a good thing rather than something to expend effort preventing. Thryduulf (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB and WP:PANDORA, Kernel (computer science) already exists.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone typing 'Kernel (Computer...' in the search bar will get Kernel (computer science) as the first option. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 15:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a subset of people looking for Wikipedia content use the internal search engine, and only those who do so with javascript enabled see search suggestions. There are plenty of other ways, and many of them are case sensitive so this is not a relevant consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even people looking from google would likely end up at the right place; [5] gives the correct page as the first result...
    Google is also not the only way people arrive at Wikipedia content. Just because you tend to use case-insensitve methods does not mean everybody does. See WP:R#KEEP point 5. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary search term and per the fact this is not likely anybody would need to use this exact miscapitalisation for a wikilink... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with RandomCanadian and Zxcvbnm. Further, keeping this seems to presume the unlikely scenario that someone has learned all about our disambiguation system, including that it's round-bracketed, and that "computer science" is our disambiguator for this (not "computing" or "computers" or ...), yet can't grasp that it's lower-case, despite hundreds of thousands of lower-case exemplars. We do not need miscapitalized DABs (except in cases where capitalization strongly varies "in the wild"). Keeping this would just encourage someone to go around creating an endless array of mis-capitalized DAB redirs to be "helpful". It's just not. The WP:CHEAP argument fails here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not at all unlikely that people have learned our dismabiguation system without noting the case, given that they should never have to learn that. As for "computer science" that's just one of several possible disambiguators and I support creating the others as well, given that we should be making it easier to find content not harder. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as title case variant. Wikipedia uses sentence case for article titles, but most other publications use title case. I don't see any rationale for deletion, besides the flawed PANDORA (why help readers if it could possibly harm them later?) and maintenance concerns, which come second. Also has received plenty of pageviews, likely some from external links that we don't want to break. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never encountered a normal reader who would type in a search term in parentheses, nor do I see any potential for some to arise in the age of autocorrect, so this is obviously pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In contrast I've seen many who have realised that Wikipedia uses parentheses to title some articles and so use them in a search. I don't understand why autocorrect has any relevance at all here, especially given that it's not available on every device people can use and not everybody uses it where it is available. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are so used to these kinds of intricacies of Wikipedia disambiguation probably don't need these kinds of navigation aids, though. (The search engine accomplishes the autocorrect function here.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The most likely people to use this sort of redirect are those who are sort-of familiar with Wikipedia disambiguation, i.e. casual readers, those who know intricacies (many fewer) will most likely use lower case. Search results are not always available and may be several clicks/taps away from where you arrive (it depends on, at least, what method you are using to find the content, on what device, and (in some cases) whether you have permission to create an article at the searched-for title), and even when search results are available and find the content you want, there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia to make readers jump through one or more hoops to reach the content via those search results versus taking them there directly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with others that there is no need to keep redirects with miscapitalized disambiguators. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion but no clear outcome yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect and its lowercase variant were both created in 2009, and by different users, so there's a good chance they were created independently and with usefulness in mind. Computer Science is an expansion of an abbreviation (List of computing and IT abbreviations#C), and so having uppercase is valid within brackets, regardless of the special meaning of brackets in Wikipedia titles. Jay (talk) 18:50, 4 December 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_November_28&oldid=1062936463"