Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2023.

3,4,5-trimethoxy-1-ethyl-(alpha-ethyl)amine[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 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woefully incorrect name for target. The "1-ethyl" and "alpha-ethyl" are redundant, or are trying to describe a different compound. The closest acceptably reasonable name is 3,4,5-trimethoxy-alpha-ethylphenethylamine. Delete this useless, confusing version. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the name is nonsensical since it doesn't mention a phenyl group even aside from this double ethyl construction. ― Synpath 19:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google tells me no one is using this term, which means no one is going to copy-paste it into our search box. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Transmetal 2[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 Transformers: Beast Wars. ✗plicit 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect as phrased is mentioned nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Transformer[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 Transformer (disambiguation) as this alternative was not opposed. ✗plicit 01:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have been created to target Transformers. However, it could be seen as misleading since the franchise and the subject seems to always be referred to in the plural. In addition, Transformer and Transformers are about two different subjects. With that being said, possibly delete or weak retarget to Transformer (disambiguation) as a compromise (though it seems that nothing in Transformer (disambiguation) is referred to with a "the" at the beginning.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Transformer (disambiguation) per the IP, although I am not opposed to deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "...per the IP"? Umm, I originally proposed that option, and the IP never stated why they support that option. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Weak Retarget to the dab page as an alternative to deletion is fine.--Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Transformers theme song[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Transformers theme song

The Transformers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#The Transformers

Alpha-ethyl-Mescaline[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Alpha-ethyl-Mescaline

Transformers episodes[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 Lists of Transformers episodes per WP:WITHDRAW / WP:IAR / WP:BOLD / WP:WHATEVER. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous. See Category:Transformers episodes. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In A Lonely Place(Dawson's Creek episode)[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 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The following redirects all have missing spaces before the parenthesis (WP:RDAB). Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beta-endorphins[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. ✗plicit 01:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

β-Endorphin is a specific compound; the plural does not make sense, and would incorrectly suggest that multiple forms of the compound exist (there are multiple forms of endorphins, of which is β-Endorphin is one). Delete to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Anyone looking for this will have to type the singular into the search box before they get to typing the "s", so the plurals serve no purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – reasonable search terms, non-negligible pageviews (for the first two redirects, at least). Many people don't check search suggestions, hence {{R from plural}}. Not sure quite what the nominator is on about. I'm not quite sure of the specific scenario here, but a quick check confirms that indeed the plural is in quite reputable use. J947 † edits 09:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plural redirects for specific compounds are not used, e.g. we don't have Epinephrines, Ethanols, Ibuprofens, Oxytocins, etc.. Sure, the purpose of redirects is to get users to the content they seek even if they enter something incorrect, but we also shouldn't perpetuate nonsense. That these redirects get some use is a self-fulfilled prophecy, if they didnt exist, correct suggestions would come up in the search bar. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some of the G-hits in scientific journals do use the plural, apparently because different forms with post-translational modifications have been identified in different species, such that use of the plural makes sense. The current enwiki article does not discuss this at all, however. I would be okay with keeping these given these findings. Hopefully the article can be expanded to discuss of some of these sublties in various forms of the peptide. I suspect α-endorphin and γ-endorphin also have various sub-forms, but these have not been as extensively studied as β-endorphin. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a sentence on multiple forms of B-endorphins to the lead of the article. Maybe it should be bumped further down in the article though, but that's not for here. ― Synpath 20:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Jack & Jill(film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14#Jack & Jill(film)

Ramones(album)[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Ramones (album), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lupus erythematosus(LE)-like syndrome due to drug[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Lupus erythematosus(LE)-like syndrome due to drug

Recursion(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 delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Recursion (computer science), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirects related to List of Shrek (franchise) characters (no mention of redirect name in target or Shrek (franchise))[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 01:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of these names in the targets or in any other article, please delete them. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aetryptamine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though these appropriately target different pages (WP:DIFFPLURAL), they represent a confusing and useless blend of misspellings combining two different types of nomenclature. Correct names for the target of the singluar include α-ethyltryptamine and etryptamine, so these redirects seem to be a misspelling of Α-Etryptamine, which is an incorrect name, using a Latin A in place of a Greek alpha, and omitting the hyphen. As this is a misspelling of an incorrect name, it is highly unlikely to be useful and should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Etryptamine is just a name for a-ethyltryptamine, so adding an alpha to it doesn't make sense, especially without a hyphen. ― Synpath 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The Bright Side (album[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 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY missing closing bracket, created as a result of an accidental page move. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 13:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant way back when. Lenka's album was in 2015 making the dab worthy.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as costly and unnecessary, and the target is incorrect. And for someone directly entering this title in the URL, the "Did you mean" function already pops up with a link to the correct redirect The Bright Side (album). It really should have been deleted immediately after the page move as per WP:G6.
However, if the consensus is to keep this redirect, I think it should at least be retargeted to The Bright Side#Music, because the correctly formatted title "The Bright Side (album)" also points to that section. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Sam Edic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Sam Edic

Higuma the Bear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Higuma the Bear

2023 Belgorod Oblast incusion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#2023 Belgorod Oblast incusion

Kamisato[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 9#Kamisato

Miss Me, Kiss Me, Love Me (Legends of Tomorrow episode)[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 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this meets WP:G7 since I created it on 18 August 2019, but EurekaLott disagrees with the former. This is all before a separate draft was created and moved to Miss Me, Kiss Me, Love Me after a round-robin move. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792... well, in G7, For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. Since I was the mover not you, G7 likely not applicable. Nonetheless, I support the deletion. The only blip on pageview is due to the page creation that was almost immediately moved to the primary title upon request at RM/TR. – robertsky (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Robert. I also feel the title is pointlessly long, and could have better been Miss Me, Kiss Me, Love Me (Legends of Tomorrow). Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Not talk quote inline[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 and update documentation. MJL, you willing to do that? (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 05:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either deletion, as the target's documentation explicitly says that

Also, this family of templates is not for use as wikitext markup for quotations on talk pages; use {{tq}} instead.

or remove redirect and give it a different colour.

It appears that there is an intermediate redirect {{!tq}} between the two pages in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and update the template documentation to reflect actual usage. While this redirect is unused the shorthand version of it, {{!tq}}, has 300+ uses and forms part of a series of templates for making red quotes, see {{!tqq}}, {{!tqi}} and {{!tqqi}}. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. {{!tq}} used to be its own poorly-coded template, but it got nominated for deletion. I knew that there was a need for this template to correlate with {{!tx}}, so I just redirected to it. To be honest, I have never really seen what the functional difference was between the {{tx}}-family and the {{tq}}-family. They basically do the same thing (make text green/red and serif), so I'm with the IP in that we should probably just update the documentation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Jay 💬 08:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long run[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Long run

Biomaker[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) 14:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful misspelling redirect; potential for confusion with actual use of term, such as the George H. Stephenson Foundation Educational Laboratory & Bio-MakerSpace at the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science, a type of Hackerspace. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Is the term used in the hackerspace meaning anywhere in our content? If so, it might be best to re-target it there. But if not, that meaning may be too obscure for us to consider, and the redirect should be kept as a credible typing error in a search. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding articles, Biomaker appears three times: Mass spectrometry imaging, which appears to be a misspelling; University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science in the sentence The department also houses the George H. Stephenson Foundation Educational Laboratory & Bio-MakerSpace (aka Biomakerspace or BioMaker Space) for training undergraduate through PhD students; and in Hackerspace in the sentence, The Bioengineering Department at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Engineering and Applied Science combines their educational lab space with an open Bio-MakerSpace in their George H. Stephenson Foundation Educational Laboratory & Bio-MakerSpace (or Biomakerspace or BioMaker Space), encouraging a free flow of ideas, creativity, and entrepreneurship between Bioengineering students and students throughout the university. I would say that the closest is "BioMaker" in regards to your question. I likely should note here that the potentially related terms "Makerspace" and "Maker Space" appear in 266 articles and 109 articles, respectively. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a mention of "Bio-MakerSpace" in an article is worthy of a redirect "biomaker". The confusion stems from someone taking the misspelling more literally, looking for something more like "maker of life". Aside from all that, misspelling redirect should be for plausible spelling errors, not typing errors. This redirect has more potential for harm than for good. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention at Mass spectrometry imaging has since been corrected by Synpath. Jay 💬 11:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The potential for confusion is probably the deciding factor per the above example and potential articles found through some googling (however unlikely). I don't think many people looking at the word Biomaker would immediately think its a misspelling of Biomarker rather than just a portmanteau of Biology and Maker. On the other hand it does seem like it is a reasonably common typo, if I'm reading the page history of the Biomaker redirect properly. ― Synpath 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. (But add Template:R from misspelling to the redirect page.) Biomarker is a widely used term in science, and something that our readers will be likely to look for. The fact that we have two pages that mention the same single laboratory, one that is not notable enough to have a standalone page, and that goes by a name that is not "Biomaker", but rather "Bio-MakerSpace", does not indicate that readers readers would come here searching for that, and would be puzzled by being redirected to biomarker. If there's a concern about that, readers arriving at the target page will see a hatnote, telling them of Biomarker (disambiguation), so a note about Bio-MakerSpace could go on the DAB page (although I don't think that's necessary). So, the purpose of a redirect is to help a reader who is looking for the most likely target, biomarker, find the page in the event of putting something other than the correct pagename in the search box. Omitting the "r" is a likely typo, and this redirect, as it is, serves the reader. The fact that we have a recognized category of redirects, Category:Redirects from misspellings, means that we have a consensus to use redirects for this purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm usually in favor of keeping misspelling redirects, but this is actually a potential point of confusion. "Makers" are a thing these days. Some makers do so in the realm of biology. I can see people calling those makers "biomakers" and then being confused. Obviously, this hasn't become widespread or caught on yet, but the potential confusion and future potential is just enough for me to think that it would be better to leave this redlinked. This is a weak !vote though, as obviously biomaker is not yet a thing, and as mentioned, I understand the utility of misspelling redirects. Fieari (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a thoughtful analysis, but it seems to me to get into WP:CRYSTAL to assume that we will later need to avoid confusion with makers who do biology. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "maker" ≠ "marker", so let's not pretend like it does. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is pretending that they are the same thing. That's a bogus argument. In this case, "maker" is one of two things: a misspelling of "marker", or something that Wikipedia does not cover because it isn't notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with the above comments, I don't necessarily believe the misspelling is not ambiguous, so I'm still retaining my stance. Steel1943 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we don't have a Biomakerspace or BioMaker space redirect, nor does it make sense to create them to point to one university department. Post deletion, searching for biomaker will any way bring up biomarker in the drop-down suggestion, while the search results will bring up pages having mention of biomaker space. Jay 💬 07:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Chris Mitchell (writer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Chris Mitchell (writer)

Template:WPCH[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Template:WPCH

Template:WPENG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Template:WPENG

Template:WPEG[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading name. All occurences substituted, now just an obvious redirect-clutter in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is it misleading? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite random acronym. In general, subjective / not well known acronyms (e.g. USA is an objective / well-known acronym) should be avoided Estopedist1 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a personal preference or a guideline/policy that we have? These are helpful and there's no reason to delete if it's just your aesthetics. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, too many possible meanings for "EG" per above. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WPAGS[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading name. All occurences substituted, now just an obvious redirect-clutter in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is it misleading? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite random acronym. In general, subjective / not well known acronyms (e.g. USA is an objective / well-known acronym) should be avoided Estopedist1 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, too many possible meanings for "AGS" per above. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WPENLANG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Template:WPENLANG

Yahoo! Inc.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Yahoo! Inc.

Tim Galloway[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. Primarily due to the existence of a potentially notable person by the same name; consensus was foggier on the question of plausibilty as a misspelling of the current target's name. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a particularly likely misspelling of the last name, especially given that the target subject is known as "Timothy" and not "Tim". Sock (tock talk) 14:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add R from misspelling for last name. Subject refers to himself as Tim in his social media: https://twitter.com/the_innergame?lang=en AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per AngusWOOf. I do think it's a possible search term for the person. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems a pretty unlikely misspelling of his real surname. Galloway to Gallwey? Why not Tim Gallaway, Tim Gallowey, Tim Galwey. I could produce 100 similar ones. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per AngusWOOF. "Galloway" is by an enormous margin a more common surname than "Gallwey" or any of the similar variants given above. A7V2 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing !vote, see below. A7V2 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the other Tim Galloways.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 01:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a potentially notable country musician named "Tim Galloway" with several mentions on WP already. Even if not notable, I don't view this as a likely misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for having 2 errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF, or dabbify for the country musician if someone is motivated to put that together. (It seems unlikely that the current target is really the primary topic for this particular spelling.) The Tim/Timothy issue is addressed above, and nobody knows for sure how to spell any given instance of /Gal{1-2}[ao]*w[ea]y*/ unless they've already seen it in print and remembered it, so I think this is a plausible misspelling. -- Visviva (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switching to delete per Presidentman. While I still think it's a borderline misspelling, having the potential confusion with someone possibly notable trumps that I think. If a dab is feasible then that would be acceptable. A7V2 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

MasterChef: Back to Win[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. Noting the addition of a suitable hatnote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to MasterChef Australia (series 12), as this was the original series which established the "Back to Win" subtitle which the American series has adapted its season's format from. Also, the Australian series is more notable and has significantly more pageviews. Happily888 (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/do not change target: As user has already been informed in the past, MasterChef (the US series) and MasterChef Australia are two different shows, hence, why MasterChef: Back to Win leads to the American season and MasterChef Australia: Back to Win leads to the Australian season. I'm not even sure how the amount of pageviews would be a valid point in this discussion... if the Australian article already has more pageviews as it is, why are we trying to decrease the US season's pageviews even more?... And if I'm mistaken and pageviews are relevant, it would probably be better to look at the pageviews from the redirects rather than the main articles, in which it can be seen that the redirect is useful for the US season (should be noted that the Australian season aired April–July 2020, while the US season aired May–September 2022). Magitroopa (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the Australian version of the show also used the name "MasterChef: Back to Win", see here, here, this logo and here.
    A redirect should direct readers to what readers are most likely to be searching for, which for most readers is the original Australian series, as this was the show which was first created and used this show's subtitle. Retargeting isn't about increasing or decreasing pageviews, it's about creating easier navigation for readers. The reason why the current Australian article redirect has less views than the "MasterChef: Back to Win" redirect is because people who are searching for the Australian series are more likely to be using the shorter redirect name, which was the name which was advertised, and are instead ending up on the American series' article. As significantly more people watch the Australian series than the American series, clearly the redirect should be retargeted to improve navigation. Happily888 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, it would be more useful to look at the pageviews via the redirects rather than just 'which main article is more popular'. Looking at that, the highest pageviews for MasterChef: Back to Win occurred between May 25, 2022, and around September 24, 2022. The American season, unsurprisingly, aired during just about that exact period. Why are we only worrying about 'creating easier navigation for readers to the more popular article' rather than easier navigation for both articles? If we are that worried about this, I would agree with what A7V2 said (below) and keep the two redirects as-is and add a hatnote to each article (such as this and this). The idea(s) you are suggesting, yes, do help navigation to the Australia article, but only worsens navigation to the American article. Magitroopa (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how looking at pageviews via redirects would be more helpful than looking at the actual article's pageviews – obviously there would be spikes in viewership during airing of the American series, although the Australian article also experienced spikes as well. One reason why there are more views of the "MasterChef: Back to Win" redirect is because it is significantly the redirect length is more concise and shorter than "MasterChef Australia: Back to Win", and I would expect that if the "MasterChef: Back to Win" redirect had been created earlier it would have had the same, if not more views, during the Australian airings than those which the redirect had during the American airing. Happily888 (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also add that the American series had a much more significant decrease in viewership in the six months following airing than the Australian series, showing higher potential long-term interest in the articles by users. The Australian article continues to have significant consistent page views three years after airing, although it is highly unlikely that the American series would have just as much in three years time as well. Note: I would also note that article pageviews are important in determining redirect targets, as ambiguous redirects should direct to the primary topic article, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Happily888 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC); edited 05:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficently useful and likely to mislead. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as is) there is absolutely no chance that someone would mistakenly mix up an American season name with an Australian season name. Submitter’s claim that the Australian series is more important or relevant than the American season and that the Australian article is "what readers are most likely to be searching for" is extremely geo-biased. The page view count is irrelevant. Also the Australian season is actually titled MasterChef Australia: Back to Win, and a proper redirect exists for this. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much more geobiased to be stating that the American season is more likely to be what someone is searching for. The Australian series is syndicated internationally in more than 86 countries,[1] whilst the American series is aired only in two countries at most. Happily888 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Magitroopa and SanAnMan. Not ambiguous and correctly targeted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above claims that this is unambiguous are, with respect, absurd. Clearly the name could also plausibly refer to the Australian series, and indeed there is evidence above of reliable sources using this exact phrasing for it. So if this is kept at the very least a hatnote should be added from the current target. A7V2 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote - The American one is likely the primary target without Australia being explicitly added, since the official name for the Australia one does seem to include the word "Australia" while the US one does not, and the British one (which also does not) does not use the "Back to Win" phrase, but I also recognize that there exist sources that don't make the distinction so a hatnote would be warranted. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the "official name" includes the country, readers don't use official names in regular usage and when typing search terms. Even in videos and on the social media pages of the Australian version of the show, the titles without Australia being explicitly added are much more commonly used than any with the country added, see [2], [3], [4], [5],[6][7]. Editors aren't giving any reason why the US one is more likely to be a primary target than the Australian version, other than stating that the Australian version is called "MasterChef Australia: Back to Win", when in fact it is clear that regular usage in reliable sources shows that the title could plausibly refer to both shows. Surely this shows the "keep voters" geobiases? Happily888 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason the American one is the primary target is expressly because that's the official name. If you have two separate topics, both of which are colloquially referred to by the same name, but one of which is officially that name while the other is not, then the primary target is the one with the official name with a hatnote linking to the other. This simply solves the problem. Fieari (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: - Per other comments, I have added a hatnote to the article MasterChef (American season 12) to clear the ambiguity. Also, as a note to User:Happily888, this is not a debate, this is a vote among other editors. You've made your points, and in the end, the consensus of the community will be the decision. Please stop trying to argue with everyone else's votes. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it isn’t a debate. But nor should it be just a VOTE, it’s literally meant to be a DISCUSSION. That’s why the title of this page is redirects for discussion. Happily888 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely isn't a vote, that's why we call them !votes. In practice, they do function in a way as votes... if a supermajority of 60-70% or more is !voting a certain way, that's generally going to be the way the discussion is closed. When !votes are closer to 50% however, the closer will generally look at the arguments and judge it as a debate. Regardless, replies to !votes are generally considered welcome, however repeated reiterations of the exact same talking points in said replies is usually considered rude. We can see your earlier replies to other commenters, and presumably took them into consideration when making our own !vote, so there's an implied "I saw your points and do not agree with them" already there. But discussion is still important to the process! Fieari (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, support as nom. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, targets should redirect to the primary topic for that redirect title. Per WP:PTOPIC, the major aspects in considering the target are usage and long-term significance. Whether a subject has another official name plays no role in choosing where a redirect is targeted. Rather, policy states that primary topics are what a reader in the general audience are more likely to want to be searching for, which is able to be shown through long-term usage in pageview statistics. Happily888 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate create a disambiguation page at this location for the Australian and American pages as a 2DAB -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: SanAnMan previously tried to close the discussion inappropriately and prematurely, despite being an involved editor. Per WP:NACINV, I have re-opened the discussion and the comments of the previous closure should be disregarded by future closing admins. Happily888 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the late retarget and disambiguation suggestions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The recent retarget !vote is from the nominee Happily888, esentially doing a second !vote on the same discussion, which is against the rules. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Against which specific rule or policy? Making a nomination isn't the same as a WP:!VOTE – in fact, per WP:AFDDISCUSS, anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion … and make their case like everyone else. Throughout this discussion, SanAnMan has shown that they have little to no understanding of policies including WP:AGF, WP:VI, WP:NACD, WP:CANVASS, WP:OWN and WP:CIR; they are repeatedly confused about discussions not being a WP:VOTE/Majority vote, but a process for seeking WP:CONSENSUS. Happily888 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GD - “Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.” Your repeated comments towards me are bordering on WP:PA. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added different discussion points when replying to !votes and comments in this discussion. I haven't made any comments in this discussion that are inaccurate; although you did try to WP:CANVAS an admin to speedy close a deletion request without making any attempt to notify the discussion. I'm not making any attack on you, I'm just making sure that the discussion is fair, reasonable and discussed correctly. Happily888 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note I have unbolded the duplicate !vote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_June_2&oldid=1161708904"