Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2023.

Ferry Pier Terminus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Ferry Pier Terminus

Extended Confirmed Protection[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Extended Confirmed Protection

Invest 93L (2023)[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 23:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 93L is a common designation for tropical disturbances in the Atlantic Ocean by the National Hurricane Center. Invest designation is reused each year and year after year (cycling through 90L to 99L and then starting again with 90L). Thus there can be and always are multiple Invest 93L systems each year. This shouldn't redirect to a specific article, as that is highly misleading.

Invest 93L is not an identifiable designation after a storm has been named, and there have already been more than one Invest 93L storms so far this year. It is highly misleading to have a redirect point to a specific storm. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per large media attention related to “Invest 93L. Noting, this was renamed to be “Tropical Depression 10” an hour ago, so the redirect is still useful. Sources: Florida Governor [1][2][3][4]. Googling “Invest 93L” pulls up a lot of news articles from the last 24 hours. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invest 93L has been and will be used many times. This redirect is misleading and will quickly become obsolete. United States Man (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There will have been several weather systems designated "Invest 93L" by the end of this hurricane season. It is now Tropical Depression Ten and is forecast to become Tropical Storm Idalia, which will be the name(s) it is known by in any future media. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There has already been two AL93s and we have never redirected invest numbers to an article to my knowledge. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC) 2023[reply]
  • Delete This title is already obsolete and will never be more than an obscure redirect with no search value. Drdpw (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to be unused. There have been multiple Invest 93Ls so far in 2023 and there will be more. Also, nobody uses the invest numbers after the storm dissipates, at the latest. Skarmory (talk ‱ contribs) 08:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very unlikely to remain useful as a redirect going forward. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful search term, and there is no good place to Retarget. 199.76.113.24 (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the future, this designation will be used if some disturbance gives it that designation. HurricaneEdgar 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - target has no information on the INVEST designation, and this particular one has already applied to multiple weather systems this year. Individual weather systems given the temporary designation will always fail GNG; when there is enough information to write about any particular storm it will already have a unique name. Wikipedia is not an emergency weather service and it is irresponsible and reckless to pretend that we are. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obsolete, not needed per above. Tails Wx 15:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ChessEric 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Invest 93L[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Invest 93L

He has no style, he has no grace, this Kong has a funny face[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 23:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This lyric of the DK Rap is not mentioned here, and is not well-known enough to be an R from lyric to the rap itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Counter-Vandalism Unit[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 23:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from main to projectspace. Not likely to be used by general readers of WP. #prodraxis connect 19:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

đŸ€­[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#đŸ€­

Contemporary Music[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 Contemporary music. Jay 💬 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the previous ones: misleading. Contemporary music ≠ contemporary classical music. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Rules as written and intended[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These terms (Rules as Written and Rules as Intended) were originally mentioned in the lead of this article, but I have removed it - it was not mentioned anywhere in the article, and including tabletop role-playing games in an article on law would probably be WP:UNDUE in any case. I propose deleting, as this term is is not mentioned at the tabletop role-playing game article. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, "Rules as written and intended" seems to mean the same thing as "Letter and spirit of the law", but it does seem a bit of an implausible search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but it seems to be a specific TTRPG (tabletop role-playing game) term which I removed from the article as undue. So if someone were to search for it, I don't think this would be the right article for them. Best to just delete completely IMO. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, this distinction is about letter versus spirit of the rules, but as far as I know (and as far as I can determine via googling) this is a term specific to tabletop role-playing games (generally, but not exclusively, Dungeons and Dragons). Neither of those articles mention the concepts of rules as written/intended, though. They are mentioned at Role-playing game terms, and an alternative would be to retarget there. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To me, the phrase "Rules as written and intended" sounds like a near-synonym of the "Letter and spirit of the law" phrase. Either it is a descriptive alternative title or an established slogan used for the same or similar purpose. In both cases, the redirect is perfectly valid and should be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like GnocchiFan said, "Rules as written and intended" appears to be a common TTRPG term. The target is suboptimal, but still provides definition on what people generally mean by this(spirit of the rules). Ideally there would be coverage at tabletop role-playing games, but the current target would be beneficial over deletion. Ca talk to me! 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion carries for similar nominations below. Ca talk to me! 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike the two noms below, I'm not finding much for the combined form. If no consensus to delete, then ReTarget to Role-playing_game_terms#R_3. - jc37 20:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthiaspaul. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suspect the most usual form of this expression is probably "law as written and intended": [5]. There are many variations on this expression, where the word "law" is replaced by a synonym: [6]. "Rules" is a synonym for "laws". The expression "rule as written and intended" is attested in law books: [7]. Therefore "rules as written and intended" is plausible. I can see that the expression is used on a number of board game websites. No evidence has been presented that any of those websites are reliable sources that we should pay attention to. Many of them are obviously unreliable social media and user generated content. It is obvious that those websites have taken this expression from law books. I don't think this redirect should point at a purely derivative meaning sourced to websites of, at best, unknown reliability. James500 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - appropriate broad-concept article for a broad-concept query. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but I reckon in this instance a hatnote is warranted for these three queries to the RPG term – it's not really a clear primary topic. J947 † edits 02:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

GDP per capita[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 the first four, Retarget the last four. Jay 💬 17:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably most or all of these should go to the same place. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lists seem like the best targets for the last two, since they present extensive explanations right at the top whereas the article Gross domestic product buries discussion of particular adjustments further down and tends to mention them as part of broader discussion rather than providing dedicated sections specific to each.
  1. Retarget GDP (PPP) per capita to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita where the lead and "Method" sections provide specific coverage about that exact topic.
  2. Retarget GDP (nominal) per capita to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita for similarly extensive specific coverage.
  3. Redirect the rest to Lists of countries by GDP per capita. Most already point there so it would cause minimal disruption, and that list does a decent job of disambiguating between differing interpretations. It doesn't provide as much coverage, but links prominently to Gross domestic product alongside specific lists; readers can most easily navigate to all relevant coverage elsewhere from there.
Practically, this means keep the top 4, retarget the bottom 4. – Scyrme (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Rules as Intended[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 02:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This (along with Rules as Written) was originally mentioned in the lead of this article, but I have removed it - it was not mentioned anywhere in the article, and including tabletop role-playing games in an article on law would probably be WP:UNDUE in any case. I propose deleting, as this term is is not mentioned at the tabletop role-playing game article. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The capitalization is a bit odd, but it should be kept for the same reasons as for why "Rules as written and intended" (further up) should be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above, but I reckon in this instance a hatnote is warranted for these three queries to the RPG term – it's not really a clear primary topic. J947 † edits 02:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dying Wish Records[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 14:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect target doesnt make any sense, this band is not related to the label or anything, they just released an album over it FMSky (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Choline salicylate[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 Choline#Uses. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently worth deletion, for two reasons. First, reason 10 in WP:R#DELETE: it's squatting on a perfectly good topic that appears in one clause (not even a full sentence!) of the target. Second, WP:XY: if we're going to redirect to an ion, choline and salicylate are equally good targets.

Of course, expansion into a full (or stub) article would always be better. I'm primarily interested in it for the chemistry, but a quick Google Scholar search turned up thousands of medical papers on the thing; I'm afraid I don't feel like wading through them all. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Choline#Uses, where choline salicylate is explicitly mentioned as a medicinal compound. That's the best place for readers interested in it to go, at present, and it's more useful to readers to be redirected there, than simply to delete the redirect. I agree with the nominator that the ideal solution is to create a standalone page, but until that happens, a better-targeted redirect is the most useful outcome for our readers. Our page on salicylic acid (to which salicylate is a redirect) is not particularly relevant, and the medicinal use of the compound is notable in a specific way that does not apply to either of the ions that make it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Choline#Uses where the compound is mentioned per Tryotofish. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Riku Matsuda (footballer, born 19919)[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 14:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ambiguous and implausible error – a change of target to Riku Matsuda (footballer, born 1999) would be just as valid, so I suppose the XY rationale is also applicable. – This redirect resulted from a page move and should have been deleted at the time. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Customs in redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Customs in redirects

Lowercase customs redirects[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 each to its respective "Culture of country" article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after the WP:TRAINWRECK result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Customs redirects. These two are in sentence case, with customs in lowercase; editors generally seemed to prefer pointing the lowercase versions to culture articles (as in cultural customs), with uppercase Customs referring to Customs agencies, as a WP:SMALLDETAILS matter. As such, I propose (and support) retargeting to Culture of France and Culture of Switzerland, respectively. Skarmory (talk ‱ contribs) 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both per nom. Lowercase "customs" does not imply a specific agency. A hatnote linking to the customs agency would helpful; something like "X customs" redirects here. For the national agency, see [link to agency]. – Scyrme (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Hatnotes could deal with the ambiguity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Nigerian Customs[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 Nigeria Customs Service. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after the WP:TRAINWRECK result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Customs redirects. The basketball team does not appear to be the primary topic – people seemed to favor redirecting this to Nigeria Customs Service, though disambiguation (including Culture of Nigeria) and deletion were other options brought up. I personally support redirecting to Nigeria Customs Service. Skarmory (talk ‱ contribs) 01:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Adolf Rizzler[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Adolf Rizzler

Wikipedia:BANHAMMER[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! 05:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I’m proposing that this redirect be turned into a disambiguation page (potentially in a form similar to this). I boldly made the change, it was reverted, so I’m opening a discussion on it here.

I described some of my reasons for making the change on the talk page. In short: the term is ambiguous (hence the hatnote); Wikipedia:Banning policy (in my opinion) currently suffers from hatnote clutter, which can be reduced by one if BANHAMMER is turned into a dab page; minimal onwiki links will be negatively affected by the change (the majority of the ones I’ve checked are ambiguous uses anyway imo and might actually benefit); and BANHAMMER gets such low page views that even if the effects were negative, they would have a very minimal impact (and may be outweighed by being able to remove a hatnote from the banning policy).

To address a concern raised on the Banning policy talk page: precedent exists for WP:SHORTCUTs to be turned into DAB pages when there’s ambiguity. Examples include WP:WHY, WP:RFCU, WP:IA, WP:CAPS (which, to take as an example, got ~9x the pageviews of BANHAMMER in the last 30 days). I understand how this could be seen as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, however my reason for referencing these is to address the statement on the banning policy talk that it’s really kind of strange to have a WP: shortcut be something to disambiguate.

I considered opening an RfD before making the change boldly, but I ultimately decided against it due to a combination of the minimal participation in the previous RfD and the low pageviews of BANHAMMER. I apologise if that’s judged to have been the wrong decision. A smart kitten (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC) Edit to add: if the consensus is to disambiguate, I acknowledge the dab page will have to be much better quality than my initial attempt was. A smart kitten (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as existing redirect. Although there is some truth to the assertion that "banhammer" is sometimes used to refer to blocks, rather than bans, it still makes the best sense to keep this as a shortcut to the present target, because it's not a "blockhammer". As a generalization, it's not that useful to have a WP: space shortcut to a DAB page. As noted in the nomination, some such DABs do exist, but they tend (at least sometimes) to result from deprecated pages such as WP:RFC/U, and serve to clear up confusion from historical links. A DAB could be useful if it provides the reader with useful information, but in this case, it's not that informative. The low number of page views for a redirect page are much less significant than the practice of referring to the term (as in, "it's time to bring down the banhammer"). When the term is used, it's more useful to be redirected to the ban policy, than to a DAB page. Hatnote clutter at the policy page is a highly subjective evaluation, and is not that compelling a reason to change the shortcut. One could, for example, just remove the hatnote, but keep the shortcut, because we have lots of shortcuts that are not all named on the target page, at all manner of targets. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep directed at WP:BAN. I've read the dab page, and simply, there is a difference between a block and a ban. And the dab page seems to conflate the two. That's contrary to policy and would be, in my estimation, generally misleading. - jc37 04:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 There is a difference, but there is a recognised ambiguity between the two (Wikipedia:Banning policy § Difference between bans and blocks); and if someone were (for example) to refer to a new user needing to cease their behaviour or else they’ll get the ‘banhammer’, that would be an example of a reference to a block rather than a siteban. The dab page definitely could have been better worded by myself (for one thing, including a short description of each policy next to the link). I apologise if it was misleading. A smart kitten (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. The whole point of all caps shortcut redirects is to provide a quick way of linking to policies, disambiguation is a bad solution that should be used as a last resort when it is absolutely necessary because it makes the shortcut useless as a shortcut. I don't see this redirect as being ambiguous enough to require disambiguation (banhammer referring to bans seems sensible) and it doesn't have widespread historical use from before it was retargeted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shortcuts should not be disambiguated because then they can no longer be used as shortcuts. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. before 2021, WP:BANHAMMER linked to the blocking policy. The shortcut clearly was ambiguous to begin with and I've seen very few people use it. Disambiguating a shortcut does not ruin the point of a shortcut; on the contrary, now WP:BANHAMMER can be used more generally, as suits it. --(Roundish ⋆t) 22:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true about the history of the redirect, but it's also worth noting that the retargeting to WP:BAN was the consensus of a 2021 RfD discussion. And I would argue that we should not encourage people to conflate blocks with bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But what are people actually looking for when they search WP:BANHAMMER? Clearly if someone decided it ought to redirect to Wikipedia:Blocking policy originally, the term isn't exactly being used to refer to a ban. (Roundish ⋆t) 00:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because someone may have a mistaken understanding of policy doesn't mean that we should perpetuate it. - jc37 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just also commenting here as I think it’s worth noting that the 2021 consensus was achieved by a discussion involving just 2 editors, one of which also supported disambiguation (not meaning to cast anything against that decision, just wanting to note in response to your comment that it wasn’t a particularly well-attended RfD). A smart kitten (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bans and blocks are functionally and procedurally different, and we go to great lengths to try not to confuse them. Making this a dab page would be surprising and confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: forgive my ignorance, but would a (well-written) DAB page not be the opposite of confusing, in resolving any ambiguity? A smart kitten (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would do so any better than the hatnote already at the top of the banning policy, "Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Blocking policy. See § Difference between bans and blocks." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_26&oldid=1174220590"