Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2023.

Albanian genocide[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Albanian genocide

Danbooru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Danbooru

Wikipedia:WFT[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. As per talk page discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Requesting_for_a_shortcut, no one can even explain the origin of this non-obvious shortcut, and no one is using it. Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get WP:WFT deleted? WikiProject Tennis already had two shortcut links (WP:TENNIS and WP:WPTEN) and this one is never used. There really aren't any current links to it and no one at Tennis Project can even figure out what it originally meant in our discussion. The other two shortcuts are sufficient and if anyone five years from now wants it back it's easy to create a new redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete per nom. There are no incoming links and the only explanation that comes to mind is Wikimedia Foundation Tennis. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 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).

Genocide of Albanians in the Balkan Wars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Genocide of Albanians in the Balkan Wars

Casino (upcoming film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "(upcoming film)" which is still getting hundreds of views a month (there has been only one day since February this hasn't been viewed). Delete "(upcoming Bangla film)" which has had less than 20 views between April and the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:UFILM, no longer upcoming. -- Tavix (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UFILM actually says that redirects should not be deleted until the page views have tapered off. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and it's been more than 30 days since release, so it's safe to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:28, 30 October 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).

List of libertarian socialist communities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#List of libertarian socialist communities

Public Appointments Service[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Public Appointments Service

Sense of pride and accomplishment[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be unclear and an unlikely search term that would leave readers confused. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unclear on the connection between to two, and the term is not likely to be used especially in reference to the game. Yoblyblob (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator / Comment - The phrase has become an internet meme due to how large the backlash was against EA's poor response. See https://www.google.com/search?q=sense+of+pride+and+accomplishment for examples of its reach. Also note that A sense of pride and accomplishment has existed as a redirect for a year.It would probably be a good idea to list the other one as well since they're essentially the same redirect. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (also see Pride and accomplishment, which redirects to the same place). Appears to be a reasonably well known phrase, often mocked, and discussed in detail at the target. If there are any plausible other targets, disambiguation or retargeting might be appropriate, but otherwise, this seems like a keep. If anything, the more basic one ("pride and accomplishment"), is probably the most likely to have other targets...adding "sense of" makes that less likely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 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).

Graphix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Graphix

Ausgleichssprache[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#Ausgleichssprache

Hilary Bosher[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a realiable source that refers to this person by either of these names. There is one online database using the hyphenated name, but I cannot figure out where they got the name from as it seems to be unused outside of that database and this redirect, and without a WP:RS for this it could be a potential WP:BLP violation. I couldn't find anything using just "Hilary Bosher" to refer to this person. TartarTorte 15:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remember creating those redirects but not why! The only source I can find now is https://www.wildwater.org.uk/2019/06/11/hilary-peacock-bosher/ but I can't remember how I landed on that page. Geromino Spork (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ah sorry, this was me posting from a different account :) John Womble (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This RFD may be worth looking at – however, I think there's more basis for use here than in any of those, at least for the hyphenated one. I'd say delete Hilary Bosher – there's no actual evidence of use for it. Weak keep the hyphenated due to the database, as someone could reasonably stumble upon it and search the name used there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both The mention of a name does not necessarily qualify for a redirect, and with lack of any other publication or website referring to them as such, I would say delete. Yoblyblob (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Yobly. We don't have enough details, and the hyphenated one may always be recreated when we get more details or add mention to the target. Jay 💬 07:52, 7 November 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).

Storm Daniels, Stormy Daniel[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. I feel it's relatively rare for a discussion to be more or less equally split between three options (ie: keeping, deleting, and disambiguating), but that's what I see here. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel where some editors are saying it makes more sense for Storm Daniels to be a typo of Storm Daniel rather than Stormy Daniels (which was previously the redirect target). I am bringing it to XfD for discussion. Some people at the Storm Daniel page think Stormy Daniels is a joke, which I don't necessarily agree with. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added XfD notification to Talk:Stormy Daniels (Twinkle only auto added it to Talk:Storm Daniel) . (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@All in Thanks for starting this discussion. There is also the redirect from Stormy Daniel to Stormy Daniels. I don't think that specific redirect has been contested, but I wanted to bring it up here for people's awareness. Edge3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Stormy Daniel above for completion (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search results show a mixed bag, best to disambiguate or delete. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: a DAB of two possible misspellings just feels wrong. Per Ivanvector. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and let the search engine handle it. We can't reasonably anticipate every possible error and the intent behind it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both so that the readers can decide which article they want to read. Edge3 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also open to keeping both for the reasons stated by BDD and Utopes below. If we keep the redirects as they currently are, then I would also support hatnotes using {{Redirect-distinguish}} or a similar template. Edge3 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status quo actually makes sense to me. I would especially keep Stormy Daniel, which seems like a reasonable misnomer since Daniel is a surname. The other is iffier, and I'm skeptical it would exist if not for the actress, but the singular "Storm" does make me assume the reader is looking for a storm. The hatnotes would look silly, but so what? --BDD (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both or disambiguate both Handling plausible one-letter typos or one-offs is not handling "every possible error". And it shouldn't be news, but the Wikipedia search results are often pretty sh*tty.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both: whilst neither Stormy Daniel nor Storm Daniels would be particularly likely typos in the absolute, both redirects and disambiguations are cheap. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both: As noted, while each typo is unlikely, each is plausible; thus making both into dab pages, with no primary topic, offering links to Stormy Daniels and Storm Daniel (no "X redirects here, for Y, …" hatnote on either article's page) may be the better option. Drdpw (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both as per people above, especially Drdpw Daikido (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate both as both plausible spelling mistakes but this way we avoid the clunky (inappropriate?) hatnotes. --woodensuperman 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or delete I don't think the Stormy Daniels hatnote is necessary because I don't think people are making this mistake. It seems to be a bad faith addition. PaulRKil (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with hatnote potentially, for reader convience). The most relevant aspect of these two names are whether it is referring to the weather or to the name of a person. In other words, whether it refers to "Storm", for the storm, or "Stormy", for Stormy. This distinction is the defining characteristic of each search term, and should be the distinction that determines the outcome of the targets. The more confusing part of both of these names, and thusly the typo of more insignificance in regards to correctness, is whether or not the second word is singular or plural. To that end, as long as "Storm Daniels" is considered a "storm", it should point to the storm. As long as "Stormy Daniel" is labeled as "Stormy", it is most likely referring to the person, with a typo in the last name. I think these two redirects currently point at their correct respective locations because of that. I weakly oppose deletion because these are very likely search terms towards proper nouns, and I don't think its an "XY" situation because the relevant aspects of "Storm" vs "Stormy" is captured and appropriately assigned. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnotes. A disambiguation page here is weird (A: what do we title it, B: outside of searching how are you going to get to it?). Hatnotes may add a little clutter, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "not to be confused with" hatnote on these articles anyway, so I don't think it's a big deal (in fact, I might prefer that hatnote to the "X redirects here" hatnote; it's a bit shorter, does the same job and feels a bit more natural). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnotes. I'm convinced by Utopes' arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both with hatnote redirect notice and link to DAB page. it was not my implication that the page/persons is a joke. the concept of forced typo or childish noting and immature pointing out of inappropriate adult topic phrases or words for humor and fooling around (laughing among friends hiding behind a cupped hand), i.e.: 69, 420, "do it", etc. has no place there, be it for clarification or not. i don't think many of the readers would have a grasp of what a redirect and failsafe/safe-net typo for foreigner convenience and only perceive it as a bad out-of-place joke. i also don't believe there would be any form of censorship as it was suggested and it's unreasonable to brand this as such. it's only a rational and simple note to keep in mind that people looking up the disaster (perhaps including those who may have had close ones fall victim to it) might find it insensitive. the only point i was making was that graphic adult entertainment (seen as indecent in half the world) does not go well with a natural disaster. i think it's fair to say more respect is due to all the victims and their families than to the appropriate spelling of the name of a single person (whoever they may be) or to those who would make an inconvenient typo they could get around in just a few extra seconds. i believe that the wording/spelling is clear enough and i support the editors who say the scenario where someone would seek one topic while fully typing in the title of the other is highly unlikely and it does not warrant an additional reminder that there is some chance that it could be a typo after the page contents have already been displayed and can be recognized at a glance. in short: being sensible to where being respectful is more helpful than the conveniencing of a possible but highly unlikely grammatical error by linking to an inappropriate article (even more so, as mentioned - at the beginning of the page) is what the consensus should be.
kuchesezik 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuchesezik (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, disambiguate, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Both misspellings are ambiguous. There's no case for a disambiguation page, which is supposed to be a list of articles that might otherwise have a title, not a list of misspellings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Better to let the search engine resolve this for users. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments since the previous one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both according to page views, neither has received any sort of attention prior to this discussion taking place. Indicates unlikely use and should be deleted Yoblyblob (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, when it pertains to titles that are so close to the two subjects' names, the short-term pageviews are not the greatest gauge for long-term likelihood, as they will surely be useful to anyone that makes the likely mistake of typing a singular instead of a plural, or a description instead of a noun. Both redirects were made in September of this year, being prompted by the storm's current attention. Granted, the views were a lot higher in September when the storm was ongoing, but "Storm Daniel" and "Stormy Daniels" will continue to be oft-searched subjects for years to come. At the time the core of this discussion was taking place, and the storm was an ongoing current event, Storm Daniel vastly outperformed Stormy Daniels in regards to pageviews. But now that the storm has passed and the views sunk post-conclusion, as of October 12th, Stormy Daniels has been regularly receiving double the daily pageviews compared to the weather event, with no evidence that this will change any time in the future. For one, this makes her the perennial primary topic (as she has been no contest since her page's creation in 2005). Because her page receives consistent 1000+ pageviews daily for years, having her name missing the final "s" would absolutely be a plausible typo, and in my opinion definitely shouldn't be deleted in order to assist with that search. But primary topic between these two aside, I still do think that the current targets are likely the most logical for readers to end up at, (that typing "storm" refers to the weather, and "Stormy" refers to the individual). Utopes (talk / cont) 14:26, 28 October 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).

List of Beatles members[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7#List of Beatles members

Phenethyl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#Phenethyl

Athondai[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 5#Athondai

Template:R from related[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 Deprecate, orphan, and then delete. I've deleted 3 of the 6 nominated for discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These had been nominated and kept back in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 22#Template:R related as ambiguous between {{R from related word}} and {{R from related topic}}; however, that discussion saw little participation, and the main arguments against the nomination were the lacking evidence of misuse and the claim that redirects are words, or phrases, not topics. I found the first one of these at Akbarzhon Jalilov (a redirect to 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing#Perpetrator), where it was added back in 2017 and clearly not meant to refer to the "related word" rcat. Reviewing the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from related, I can see at least several other redirects that should use {{R from related topic}} instead of {{R from related word}}, e.g.:

Some other transclusions where I personally would not place the {{R to related word}} tag are arguably still valid, so I'm not listing all instances here. (Another set of redirects should be using a completely different rcat altogether, such as {{R from alternative name}} and its subcategories like {{R from long name}}; e.g. Unarmed combat, Interfacial tension, Moorean fact, Chinese clan surname, or Argument from personal incredulity.) A similar situation (including the {{R from long name}} case) can be seen with the other templates.

As for the second argument presented in the 2013 discussion, it does not seem quite on-topic, since the "word" and "topic" rcats are distinguished in the first place, and rather appears to result from a misunderstanding of the categories itself, as {{R from related word}} is generally only applied if the words of the redirect's and target's titles are related (generally by morphology), not their senses (exactly the use-case for {{R from related topic}}).

I argue that these should either be retargeted to {{R from related topic}} or deleted; the first solution would mitigate the issue detailed above by turning incorrectly categorised into not fully subcategorised redirects, because Category:Redirects from related words is a subcategory of Category:Redirects to related topics. Regardless of whether the nomination is closed as "keep", "retarget", or "delete", the transclusions need to be reviewed individually (for which JPaestpreornJeolhlna, who showed interest in volunteering back in 2013, unfortunately does not appear to be around to assist), though in case of a decision to keep these I suppose this would technically no longer be in scope of this venue. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all and update transclusions as needed (happy to help- just ping). Sure, most users who care about rcats likely know which these refer to, but the risk of confusion is real, and it would be better for a redirect to be uncategorized than miscategorized (which happens all the time as it is). We also have the redirect {{R from related term}} which targets {{R from related topic}} which IMHO should be moved to {{R from related word}} (see Template_talk:R_from_related_word#Requested_move_30_May_2021, where the argument was basically "that might make sense, but it would be too much work") or at least retargeted there, but I digress. Ultimately, the redirects under consideration here are ambiguous and should not be used, and the necessary effort put in to fix things now so as to result in better categorized redirects in the future. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now reminded that the logical target of R from related term was restored after that RM. Though there is still plenty of miscategorizations between "word or phrase" and "topic". Mdewman6 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to {{R to related topic}}: These are ambiguous, but related topic is the most broad. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and check each individually, which I have been doing over time. One problem with retargeting is that the "topic" rcat template is only used in mainspace, and the "word" rcat template is used in any namespace. So if "word" template redirects are retagged to the "topic" rcat template, there will be a lot of redirects added to Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. Note that the main difference is that "topic" redirects in mainspace have a much better {{R with possibilities}} chance of becoming an article than do the "word" redirects in mainspace. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate with a pointer to the more specific alternatives, which will make the ongoing cleanup work easier. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan then delete – this is just ambiguous, and the transclusions should be updated on a case-by-case basis as opposed to just retargeting to related topic which will break correctly tagged redirects. I'm also willing to help, just ping me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:46, 25 October 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).

Cuban reolution[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. Fuzheado | Talk 11:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling with no incoming links and no pageview activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – 'c' and 'v' are the copy-paste keys, and may be used more heavily and wear out faster. As it happens, my 'c' key doesn't work at all, and hasn't for some time; I've been procrastinating taking the laptop in because I don't want to be without it that long. (On the flip side, I know the alt-key codes for lowercase and capital C by heart, and can touch type them pretty quickly now.) Won't oppose a delete if there is really no activity, but I'm very aware of how a search term might be likely to be missing a 'v' (or in my case, a 'c') so it's a reasonable scenario. Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a citation that those keys wear out quickest? My laptop's broken key is "y", so my anecdata contradicts yours. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys have just one broken key? I have one laptop where the keyboard doesn't work at all, and another where 3-E-D-C are all dead. My partner's only works on the right side and the spacebar is erratic. I've gotten pretty good at finding Bluetooth keyboards on sale. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Yoblyblob (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: harmless and unambiguous. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appear to be reasonable rationales for keeping that merit further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In theory we could also have Uban revolution, Cban revolution, Cuan revolution, Cuba revolution, Cuban evolution, Cuban rvolution, Cuban revltion, Cuban revoution, Cuban revoltion, Cuban revoluion, Cuban revoluton, Cuban revolutin and Cuban revolutio, and it would be all of that (except unambiguous for Cuban evolution). But I personally wouldn't want Wikipedia to be filled with these trash redirects.
The redirect had no views this month before its nomination and I doubt it had a lot this year. Searching any of these misspells including the nominated one either on Google or on the Wikipedia search bar would end up with the actual page showing up as the first result anyway. So why keep useless redirects? We can't have ones for every single misspell. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for creating such redirects is very weak, and they should probably not be created. However, they are all completely harmless, and filling Wikipedia with such trash redirects, while unnecessary, does not harm in the project in any way. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and pageviews-wise, the redirect has maintained sparse, but fairly steady views since 2015, for a total just short of 300. That means that at most 300 (297, to be precise) users have benefited from this redirect. Deleting it would be pointless, and would on the whole be a net negative. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person who searched this misspell, would have gotten to the page five seconds later anyway. Exactly like everyone who searched the other misspells I listed did. They are not conscious, not voluntary, if you see them in an academic article, they're not supposed to be there. We should cut off everything that is not of encyclopedic value. We surely should have redirects for common misspells. Cuban reolution, is not. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- typo by omission of the "v", as typos by omission are quite frequently found, this is a not unlikely form of typo. And usage stats shows use over the years this has existed, at a rate of more than 1/mo. on average, per the 300 stat given for 8 years. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is not helping anyone and does not have any reason to exist from what I can tell. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An editor made a typo in 2006 when our search function was primitive. If this was a one word title with a typo, I would be swayed by the keeps. Otherwise on top of Dromaeosaurus' examples, someone may want prefix every region or country that has had a "reolution". Jay 💬 06:52, 1 November 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).

Suzanne Tinker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Suzanne Tinker

ST3 Telkom[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. Jay 💬 07:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ST3 Telkom" seems to be an acronym for the school of "Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Telematika Telkom". It shares a similar former name with other related articles, such as Telkom Institute of Technology, which is also technically abbreviate-able to "ST3", with a former name of ("Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Telkom"), although "STT Telkom" is used within the article.

Nevertheless, in its current state, this past name does not appear at the target article, as it was scrubbed and replaced back in 2019, which I presume is around when the Telkom schools' names were all changing. While a former name definitely sounds like a valid redirect, I air this because the article did not have a single reference when at that name. Since then, it has moved, and gained one reference (a primary source), but I'm hesitant to auto-accept uncited information, and the former name is not mentioned anywhere here, with a small chance that it could be confused with Telkom Institute of Technology's or other similar school's past names. Still, I am not a subject-matter expert here by any means, so other opinions are what I'm after for what to do with this. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a mention. 1 minute on google found [1] which (via Google Translate) is a press release from the company concerned announcing the change of name. So this is a perfectly valid {{R from former name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with mention per Thryduulf Yoblyblob (talk) 13:28, 25 October 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).

Death Stare[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. Jay 💬 07:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is only referred to at this title as "Luigi's death stare", not "Death Stare" on its own. "Death staring" as a general term is listed as term for Cut-eye. Also happens to be one letter off of Death Star, although I think Cut-eye as an umbrella term seems to be the better location of a target, especially when "death staring" is a common action that anyone can do in various contexts. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could support a weak retarget to cut-eye, a term I was previously unfamiliar with, but seems to fit. I don't have a problem with it redirecting to Mario Kart 8 as it is now, though it is probably a bit vague for what it is. I don't support retargeting to any "Death Star" variants - these are all such short basic words that I don't feel like we need to worry so much about redirecting for misspelling. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple real life topics - murderous glares, evil eyes, etc; or weak retarget to cut-eye -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to cut-eye. I think most people who search up death stare are looking for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cereally8 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to Cut-eye?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No clear target here; "cut-eye" seems just as implausible as other suggestions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cut-eye, usage of cut-eye is similar in usage of death stare. A Disambig would also work Yoblyblob (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? The few standard dictionaries I checked would seem to disagree with that. A basic G search also didn't find anything to support that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree - the description of cut-eye in the article does not sound anything like what I would understand "death stare" to mean, which is much closer to glaring. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this capitalisation, noting Death stare is red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 29 October 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).

Native forest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Native forest

Ronald Trump[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) Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible error. Note that this was discussed on the NPP Discord server. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be intentional usage of the term in sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, definetly a valid typo, also per sources. NotAGenious (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per given sources Yoblyblob (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete completely useless redirect, just rewrite your search if you had a typo. I looked up "Ronald Trump" in Google and few results are related to Donald Trump. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to its use in sources as provided above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 25 October 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).

3-Hydroxy-β-lactone[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and misleading incorrect name for target. The target is the lactone of 3-hydroxypropionic acid; a valid alternative name would need to include "propionic acid" in the name. This name suggests the target compound contains a hydroxy group, which it does not. Delete to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking those, I see the confusion now. Alternative names are separated by semicolons at the NIST page, and some names contain commas. The one in question is actually Propionic acid, 3-hydroxy, β-lactone, but the propionic acid part of the name was incorrectly omitted on the NIOSH page (which I'm assuming is based on NIST?). The NIOSH page also lists 3-Hydroxy-propionic acid as an alternative name for the lactone, but 3-Hydroxypropionic acid is a different compound, and obviously the insertion of the hyphen does not change it's meaning. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing/not useful/inaccurate. The redirect can be credibly interpreted to describe 4-hydroxyoxetan-2-one. I agree with Mdewman6 that the redirect could be a mishandling of the 3-hydroxypropionic acid lactone and similar synonyms. For what it's worth PubChem does not list 3-hydroxy-beta-lactone as a synonym for beta-propriolactone. ― Synpath 19:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this redirect has had seven page views in the last 8 or so months, evidently getting some usage. Unfamiliar with chemistry so do not wish to vote for usefulness Yoblyblob (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's later explanation. The comma-separated long name redlinked version suggested by nom appears compliant with NIOSH. Jay 💬 08:24, 1 November 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).

Amtryptamine[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 Amtryptamine and Amtryptamines, no consensus on the others. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all correctly targeted if you can guess what these are attempting to abbreviate, but these sorts of abbreviations, without any hyphen or capitalization to separate the prefix from "tryptamine" is not used and is confusing. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep moved to Neutral, as these seem harmless if they are correctly targeted. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as well. Redirects of the properly spelled variations exist and these still see a tiny amount of regular use. ― Synpath 20:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amtryptamine and Amtryptamines, weak keep the others. The combined lack of hyphens and confusing shortening of the methyl abbreviation push it over the line to unlikely and non-useful typo. ― Synpath 17:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody abbreviates methyl as "m", in part due to it being the abbreviation for meta. Even if they did, the lack of hyphens just makes these barely intelligible, and suggesting these are acceptable alternative names for the compounds, which they are not. That combined with the ASCII "A" instead of "α"...these abbreviations attempt to condense too much into a few extra letters just added at the beginning of "tryptamine". Some were incorrectly targeted; I retargeted them before making the batch RFD. I understand the tendency to defer to keeping harmless redirects, but I really do not view these as harmless, i.e. we'll be better off without them. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting latin characters for greek characters and using short-forms is a default assumption of mine when searching for compounds. Dropping the occasional hyphen is an expected typo. To me that makes the formation of most of these redirects just good enough to keep since they are used (barely) even with more correct, more common variations existing. Though, now that you point out the Me vs m (meta) comparison I see that that is properly confusing. I'm guessing it comes from generalizing the name Etryptamine to alpha-methyl groups mistakenly. Searching google for that name only pulls up tumblr sites funnily enough, I'll update my comment above. ― Synpath 17:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving to neutral on all 6 to align with Mdewman6's judgement here. If they get in the way, they get in the way, (and should be cleaned, as) organized and consistent sets of redirect names are appreciated. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — more discussion is needed on the A-Methyltryptamine redirects in particular.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:11, 25 October 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).

Bǎi Wàn Fù Wēng[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 International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon stumbling at this rdr from the Mandarin title this rdr currently directs to, and looking through its page history Kazu89 moved it to Baak Maan Fu Yung by their assession that "it is a cantonese show", with Sdf moving it to the current Mandarin title DAB (which is itself currently subject to G14 scrutiny) on basis of "they have the same contents", to which I'm requesting a deletion. Intrisit (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus on appropriate target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:00, 25 October 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).

Bai Wan Fu Weng[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 International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon stumbling at this rdr from this page and looking through its page history, Hrafn invoked an rdr on grounds of notability and verifiability, culminating in a change in hand of an rdr target for the rdr up until Sdf's move to the current Mandarin title DAB (which is itself currently subject to G14 scrutiny). Sdf's assession was that that "no article existed" for the title, to which I'm requesting for its deletion. Intrisit (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've declined the WP:G14 for the DAB as the page is not eligible even with only one entry as it does not end in "(disambiguation)". Ordinarily I would have redirected the page to the one remaining target, but have refrained from doing so in order to avoid confusing this discussion. This RFD entry should probably be merged with the one below. I do not have an opinion at this time whether it would be more appropriate to delete here, or restore the article and have it discussed at WP:AFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:791A:963C:B56D:EECF (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should be bundled with the Bǎi Wàn Fù Wēng nomination below -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per my comment in above discussion Yoblyblob (talk) 13:55, 25 October 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).

TI-001[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on enwiki. No obvious association with target based on Ghits. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If retained, it should be retargeted to Oxytocin (medication) then, but it seems to me like an obscure synonym that would merit deletion per WP:RFD#D8. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Martin, Ulrich (2013-06-10). "Trigemina Initiates Phase II Clinical Trial of TI-001 for Chronic Migraine". The Biologics News and Reports Portal. Retrieved 2023-09-19.
  2. ^ "Tonix Pharmaceuticals to buy Trigemina's migraine, pain treatment technologies". Insight Weekly | S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2020-06-11. Retrieved 2023-09-19.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Or retarget to Oxytocin (medication)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in that I agree with Mdewman6 that this is an obscure synonym that seems to only have been used in a clinical trial and was never distributed with that name. If this particular application of oxytocin ever reached a larger population of patients (i.e. notable) under this name or with reference to this name it could be mentioned in the Oxytocin (medication) article and then TI-001 retargeted there. I did not see evidence to support that. ― Synpath 23:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments since the previous one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:56, 25 October 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]

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. These two redirects have now been relisted seven times, counting the original no-consensus discussion from which these two were renominated. After five months consensus has not emerged, and the latest comments are moving further from that goal. This is an involved close, but sometimes discussions just need to end. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after the WP:TRAINWRECK result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Customs redirects. The "Customs in" form was the most contested of the initial nomination, mainly due to the fact that the word customs comes at the start of the title, and therefore it's impossible to tell whether the user wants it to be uppercase or lowercase; these do use the country name and not demonyms, but that didn't seem to be enough to break the stalemate before. Disambiguation was also brought up as a possibility, though it would be a DAB with just two entries (Culture of France and Culture of Iran, along with the current targets). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Customs taxes are something paid at the border; the word "in", to me, sounds like something performed in the interior, i.e. a cultural practice. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually reckon the opposite: if I were searching up French border customs, I would search up Customs in France (or French customs), but if I were searching up French cultural practices, I'd be more likely to search up Customs of France. YMMV. J947 † edits 05:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to respective culture articles. I agree that "in" suggests internal cultural practices. I also think it's better to assume the lowercase in these circumstances since in the context of internal links in article text that's how it's most likely to appear. In all these cases, I think consistently redirecting to the same type of article is important and ambiguity is better resolved through hatnotes; it's simpler than encouraging the creation of disambiguation pages just to link two targets for each country. Accordingly, my second preference is to keep both over creating disambiguation pages. – Scyrme (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "France" - let the search engine handle it. The top two results for "customs in france" are Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes and Culture of France, the two main articles on the different subjects. We don't need to improve on that.
    Retarget "Iran" to Culture of Iran, with a hatnote to Taxation in Iran#Customs. The search engine doesn't handle this one very well at all for some reason but the hatnote will do the job. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "France" per Ivanvector.
    But I'll differ in the second instance Retarget "Iran" to Taxation in Iran#Customs. Not only do I think it's the primary topic (if not a primary topic), it's also the article it's least harmful to place a hatnote on, being much less viewed and at a section. J947 † edits 05:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My preference to target Culture of Iran with a hatnote is due to clutter: Taxation in Iran#Customs already has an extensive "see also" hatnote while the former article has none. But I'm not really fussed one way or the other. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid point, but I'd much rather the double hatnote in this instance (probably on two separate lines) because the difference in views is fairly severe. J947 † edits 19:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget France to culture per Bernanke and Scyrme. Retarget Iran to culture per Bernanke, Scyrme and Ivan. Hatnote both, and since ambiguity can be handled by the hatnote, deletion is not required. Jay 💬 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both, a suitable target with a hatnote to handle ambiguity. I don't find the search results based argument too persuasive, as search results are subject to change as the content of the encyclopedia changes; while I would consider the argument if it were in opposition to a plainly subpar retarget option, I don't see the need for deletion in this context. signed, Rosguill talk 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New responses from last week after slowing down.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate all. Unless a decision is made to retitle Customs, which is currently an article about the kind of government agency, these properly follow WP:CONPRIME, which says: "Where a topic has been determined to be the primary topic of a term, subtopics should follow that primary topic determination". The larger question, I think, is whether Customs should actually point to the disambiguation page, Custom. BD2412 T 15:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no consensus yet on either redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:55, 25 October 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).

LancetGate[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. Most participating editors agreed that the use of the suffix -gate unambiguously referred to some controversy involving The Lancet, but since the publication has been involved in multiple controversies, there was no consensus on which section the redirect should target. Editors also proposed deletion due to the lack of a mention of the term in the article. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is somewhat tricky, but I thought it would be better to discuss it here. Without any context, "LancetGate" appears to be an R from non-neutral name, but this name is not mentioned anywhere at the target page, nor does it appear in any of the references to my knowledge. Conducting my WP:BEFORE shows that this term does receive mild media use, but its unclear to me whether this is a colloquial synonym and "abundantly clear that this is what people want to see about when searching this" Utopes (talk / cont) 18:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first assumption is that the term would refer to the Lancet MMR autism fraud. I think it could reasonably refer to any Lancet controversy. Since there are two separate controversy sections, just removing the section target may be our best bet. If there were a single controversy section or standalone article, I'd advocate for pointing there. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing BDD’s comment, my first instinct was to see if a “Controversies” section existed at The Lancet (it doesn’t). I agree with BDD: in my opinion, the term could reasonably be used to refer to any controversy regarding the paper. If something like List of controversies involving The Lancet existed, I’d suggest retargeting there - but as it doesn’t, I can’t. user:A smart kittenmeow 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (post-relist comment) I guess if there isn’t such an article, I’d say my !vote would be weak retarget to The Lancet#Retracted papers and scientific controversies, which seems to the most fitting section at the target (and the parent section of the current target). If a separate list gets created, I’d advocate for re-retargeting there per my comments above. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments since the previous one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Lancet. I don't think we can be confident which controversy the reader is looking for, so just redirect them to the article and let them navigate from there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of mention. Given this is a non-neutral term, I would need to see it referenced with reliable, unbiased sources before supporting a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 11 November 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_October_25&oldid=1185669072"