Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2024.

229762[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 per WP:SNOWBALL and I'm almost withdrawing this nomination.(non-admin closure) InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to a previous discussion about minor planet names with only the numeration, intsead of the complete name. In short, this redirect is unhelpful, ambigous, and unrelated to 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà. I believe that no one will be normally searching to 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà by just typing the numeration. Although the minor planet's name is very difficult to type, there are still more plausible, natural and simple redirects, such as the provisional designatiom 2007 UK126. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per e.g. 99942, 136199, 486958. The redirects in the previous discussion were smaller numbers with only four digits; they could also refer to e.g. years. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for numbers that large it is unlikely that someone would type the same number as a large/well-known minor planet and be looking for something else. Also, someone having only encountered the current designation 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà will be most likely to search it by its number, as it can be typed on a standard keyboard and doesn't require additional knowledge of a former provisional designation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can minor planets be referred to by the number alone? It's common for the number part of the minor-planet designation to be dropped, but I'm not sure I've seen the opposite. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep for sorta kinda the same reason as 177013 (check at your own risk, it's nsfw as hell). the number is a little too specific to be reasonably used anywhere else, so i don't see any harm cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most of the reasoning above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: considering how difficult to type the name Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà is and the fact that this number is not ambiguous with anything else with an article, this is worth keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 1 May 2024 (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).

MOS: OVERLINKING[edit]

Precedent indicates this is not useful as a redirect. If "MOS" is supposed to be a namespace, this is not how namespaces work. Spaces should not be separating the prefix and the title, and MOS:OVERLINKING already has existed for seven years prior. Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5#MOS: HYPHEN and others Utopes (talk / cont) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My phone keyboard likes to insert spaces in such places (just tried it). So this is potentially useful, and I can't see any harm. Sad that the other (even more useful looking) MOS: redirects were deleted. —Kusma (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Why wilfully make things difficult? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mos:DAB and etc.[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The correct pseudo-namespace is MOS. Throughout the years, there have been a number of "lazy prefix" versions of MOS redirects floating around mainspace, which don't capitalize the full prefix of "Manual of Style". The argument is that "Mos" is easier to type than "MOS", and people that don't capitalize the searches would otherwise be piping their pageviews through the lowercase variants. However, this nomination consists of all the pages that are otherwise doing "two things ineffectively". It's implausible to expect someone to type "Mos" in lowercase, before changing their mind and capitalizing the rest of the title, or parts of. There are only 11 of such cases across article-space. For the rest of the "Mos" titles, the vast majority of these pseudo-pseudonamespace redirects are constructed like Mos:bold, in all lowercase for "maximum laziness", which at least serves a unique purpose that the full-capital prefix does not. The swapping back and forth between capitalization is unnatural and already covered by the search box. In all of these situations, the correct version of "MOS:X" already exists, so typing this in yields no difference in results besides unnecessary name duplication among titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: not sure exactly how implausible it is... I know that the WP prefix is case insensitive but don't always know if all the case variations after it have been made, so I'm pretty sure I have typed "wp:DAB" before, which works since WP is an alias for the Wikipedia namespace. I could see that logic carrying over to the MOS/mos pseudo namespace; deletion could still make sense since they're meant to be internal and are part of the article space and the bar for keeping is higher. Skynxnex (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add a data point, fresh from my contributions: special:diff/1221026265: Mos:NOPIPE. And that's in a place where nobody can fix it. Paradoctor (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not often on this page, but isn't this a case where Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap applies? What do they hurt? One person's laziness is another person's efficiency. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, plausible redirects are useful and it is nice to have a few lying around, but these titles are all the opposite of efficient. Efficient would be MOS:DP or Mos:dp, not swapping capitalization up and down multiple times. Pseudo-namespaces prefixes are not lowercase. The list of shortcuts is CAT, T, H, MOS, P, per WP:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. Because PNRs exist in mainspace, yet point to technical/codified back-end MOS pages, a consistent structure is imperative for shortcuts. Because these titles are in violation of common-held shortcut practices, these types of titles are not cheap, as there is no need for every capitalization alternation over the moon. Pages that start with "Mos" are already out of convention, but they see pageviews due to lowercase-only typing. If these aren't meant for lowercase-only typing (due to the capitals in the title part), they should be removed to minimize the instances of unnecessary PNRs in mainspace. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom as an improper capitalization on a nonexistent namespace. (However, if any of these redirect have incoming links, replace them with their all-caps variants prior to deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. All-caps are fine and the usual convention for such redirects, at least regarding the prefix. Gawaon (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and these are plausible as typos from people hitting or not hitting caps lock while typing shortcuts. They harm nothing and can just be ignored by those bothered by their inconsistency. That's a you problem, not a problem with the redirects. oknazevad (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While these redirects are harmless, deleting them only disturbs linking – typing in the search box will give the same result whether they exist or not. So strong neutral I guess. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SchreiberBike. Why wilfully make things difficult? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

App£€[edit]

WP:UNNATURAL redirect not mentioned at target. Unclear if this is supposed to imply the products are expensive or if it's leetspeak. My keyboard doesn't even have the pound or euro signs. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like not too long ago, there was a case that came through RfD where an "S" was replaced by a dollar sign ($), and something was said about such a title being an unmentioned/disparaging nickname, or to that effect. In any case, the outcome I remember there ended up being deletion, and I concur regardless that this should be deleted as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it Micro$oft? Presumably there would have to be evidence of this kind of a satiric misspelling for Apple to keep this one, which did start as a redirect to Criticism of Apple Inc., but that article also doesn't mention it now. --Joy (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a potential insult, similar to "Micro$oft" or something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Satiric_misspelling#Currency_signs per Micro$oft. Alternatively, redirect to Criticism of Apple. GobsPint (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the nomination. I would find it hard to even search for that term as my keyboard doesn't have those currency symbols. TarnishedPathtalk 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Support[edit]

Doesn't seem like the ideal target for this phrase, as I believe this phrase to be ambiguous. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing pussy[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 💬 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely/not particularly useful search term which is rather unencyclopedic. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2024 (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).

1.3 patch[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 💬 14:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not the only possible target for a 1.3 patch, not the only possible target for a fanmade 1.3 patch, and not the most likely target for a 1.3 patch (that seems to be cyberpunk 2077) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I feel like Minecraft's 1.3 update would also be more likely as a target. This is way too ambiguous and would not make a good disambiguation page, so we should just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically any game that has patches could use a 1.3 patch. I would even disagree on Cyberpunk 2077 being the most prominent, as I could think of like 5 others that were majorly influential, Terraria also up there along with Minecraft and a whole list. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Daikatana is perhaps the best target we have right now but search results seem like it'll take care of it so delete since it's too ambiguous and not primary "enough" even if primary. Skynxnex (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could apply to literally any game with a version 1.3, too ambigious. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as someone who plays the farm sim Sun Haven (which doesn;t have an article yet), those updates are called patches (currently at patch 1.3) and it can refer to pretty much any game with those updates. A disambiguation page would be innapropriate for Wikipedia since there would be hundreds of video games. JuniperChill (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too many possible target. Too ambiguous. TarnishedPathtalk 11:03, 1 May 2024 (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).

King Dede[edit]

Very implausible redirect. Averages single-digit numbers of yearly pageviews and has less than 200 pageviews for its entire existence since it was created in 2015. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: tag with {{R to section}} (maybe with {{R from misspelling}} can't remember if that or incorrect name would be better here). Doesn't seem implausible to remember the name as just two "D"s as opposed to three since both are somewhat unusual and seems harmless. Skynxnex (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex: Judging by the extremely low pageviews, it does seem implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR since I don't think there's any risk of confusion or this redirect making it harder to find another article, having any actual page views (which this seems to) is evidence this redirect is at least somewhat useful. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Page views don't tell the story, I think this is a very easy mistake to make. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a useful redirect to chop off letters from the name, which ends up being closer in composition and pronunciation to King Dead. In any case, the correct version of "Dedede" is already autofilling after the just first three characters of "ded" anyway, so this redirect is functionless and otherwise confusing. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep. Totally appropriate {{R from incorrect name}}, which I created almost a decade ago. Unless there is some sort of evidence this redirect is ambiguous, the target is appropriate since the amount of "de"s in "Dedede" can be forgotten. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And I'm still convinced that this target is appropriate regardless of the "delete" vote I edit conflicted as the redirect is a partial title match for the intended subject, rather than having to transpose letters and replace an "e" with an "a". Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dede and Dead can both be said in one syllable, and are each similar as 4 letters words. One can be formed by removing the vowel "E" and adding the vowel "A". King Dead, King Ded, King Dede are all super close. Whereas Dedede isn't just a letter swap, but a new-letter ADD... and then YET ANOTHER added letter, forming a three-syllable word instead of one. Also "Dedede" is insanely easy to spell and I would not expect any other spellings to hit there apart from King DDD. I'd vote to delete King DD were it real. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point towards Dede (religious figure) as being a leader called "Dede", which might have ambiguity towards this shortened Dede (especially as Dedede is never called Dede). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is that still ... people can forget or not care about the amount of "de"s. And here, I'd believe the spelling rather than the pronunciation makes the difference here, meaning the likelihood of someone looking up this redirect to locate "King Dead" or "King Ded" is highly unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think it's a believable typo, and redirects are cheap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not an implausible typo in my opinion - it's also worth noting that Dedede is listed in the 'see also' of Dede. I found this typo used in several locations online (e.g. [1] [2] [3]), which - in my view - show that it is a plausible mistake that can be made. I'm unconvinced by arguments of ambugity, as I couldn't find evidence that the phrase king dede could be used with reference to a dede (religious figure) - and in any event, if this redirect could be ambiguous with another article, I'd support dabification or hatnoting over deletion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (feral child and etc.[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound... this nomination consists of every remaining redirect with unclosed parenthesis, of which there are now only twelve. All of these typos are not plausible to intentionally make on their own. Because there's been cumulatively 1000+ or so of these redirect types deleted over the last few months, this nomination seeks to determine whether there's a threshold that makes these redirects acceptable, or if one even exists. Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable. While it's good to have redirects from common misspellings lying around for ease of navigation on Wikipedia, the presence of implausible redirect errors sets unreasonable expectations and portrays the faulty notion to readers that "infinite typo variations are encouraged, regardless of likelihood", when this is not currently the case. For the most part, spelling variations are accepted in redirects; especially with words that are tricky to spell, having a set of titles with minor differences can be useful to capture likely, intentional errors. When it pertains to disambiguation, though, there will never be a time where errors in the act of disambiguation are expected, for any title. While someone might spell a title like Hampster with an intentional (but incorrect) "P", one can generally have 100% confidence that a title with a left parenthesis will contain a right parenthesis, and, as an extension, typing in a title that doesn't contain a right parenthesis will have a 0% likelihood of being redirected to the correct title, as it will never be correctly expected. The disambiguator is Wikipedia's "official insertion" onto the title based on other article names that co-exist here. The tagline's format can be safely assumed as error-free, or if there is an error in the disambiguation, that it will be corrected ASAP without hesitation. Being locked into keeping tabs on any and all errors within this "topic title guarantee" inherited from Wikipedia disambiguation precedent, just because of one (or twelve remaining) bad links on the internet, is just not worth for titles that are one punctuation mark away from the correctness that was already assumed beforehand. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be) Fieari (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions. Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These redirects are not typos for the benefit of people already on Wikipedia, but people navigating to Wikipedia from external sites. Many sites most prominently Reddit, have an issue where the trailing parenthesis is cut off in URLs without some HTML wizardry. The site "forces" users to make these "typos" when you just copy the link sometimes. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think my past self would have (and did) support deleting these. But we come down to yet another delete these convention failing to uphold a challenge on its merits, and so it goes. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:RDAB due to the missing end parentheses. Also, delete per precedence set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14#Conjunction (grammar and etc.. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all — the assertion in the description "Most of these redirects have come to exist through erroneous links, which are updateable." is vague and misleading: it hides the useful truth which is that "At least some of these links are NOT updateable.", for example in IRC chat logs (e.g. for "Address (geography"). Agreed with prior Keep all arguments that a small handful of such redirects are WP:CHEAP. The net-net here is that a small handful are providing more utility (fixing unchangeable slightly erroneous links to Wikipedia, for a smoother Wikipedia experience) than cost. That's also a reasonable standard to apply for future such exceptions (source of link is apparently unchangeable). The arguments for Delete all appear to mostly be forms of the "Perfect is the enemy of good" problem. Tantek (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All links are updateable, through either direct editing, or replacement if locked. The notice that appears on every page saying "did you mean to close your parentheses" would not discourage readers from reaching their destination being just a click away, and encourages the phasing-out of any erroneous links. "Perfect is the enemy of good" does not seem to be accurate when we aren't dealing with an out-of-reach concept of totality; there's no 80-20 about it. This the entire set of titles that are out of alignment with redirect fundamentals, and the problem can be solved with just this RfD. The lack of these redirects will not prevent anyone beyond finding it gone a single time, and immediately finding a new solution in seconds, whether it comes from adding a parentheses to their search term or url, or adding it to the link itself if handy, or generating one's own link. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all if you are going to rescue typos by redirection then why stop with close parenthese. Why not redirect E Mathematical Contant and Genie (ferral child) OrewaTel (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and RDAB, and also per precedence of previous discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 02:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per all above, also a) Aren't these only "getting used" because as people type in names, the auto-fill starts listing results and as they get to the end of the name, but before they type in the closing parathesis, the redirect without one populates to the bottom of the auto-fill box making it most obvious and easy to click on,(but at that point, the correct, full name is right there at the top of the results as well).

    b) It doesn't seem anyone wants to see more of these types of redirects created, so wouldn't deleting help with that? (There are people who literally spend all their time looking for pages to create, and having redirects like this to obstensibly compensate for typos in page names will just encourage the creation of more.)

    Their usage is a false positive, they don't really assist with anything, removing them will not hamper anyone's ability to search, and if we don't want these types of redirects, then we shouldn't be making a special exception to this group just because they exist. (jmho) - wolf 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all based on the fact there are legitimate reasons why people might be visiting these redirects other than simply typos. For example, in Markdown, unescaped right parentheses are interpreted as the end of a URL, so often times when people link these Wikipedia pages in Reddit comments, people will be directed to these sorts of titles. In addition, of course redirects are cheap. --Habst (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2024 (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) 15:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all These redirects are explicitly discouraged and would fall under WP:R3 if created today. There is precedent for deleting them, and keeping them would have WP:PANDORA issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per all the other times those redirects with missing parentheses got deleted cogsan (nag me (stalk me 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and these are all likely from external links on sites such as Reddit and are absolutely pointed at the correct targets. These also all appear to be popular enough to get regular use about 5 users a day or so. Genie especially is frequently posted and can get very high daily page views (e.g. 6k a few weeks ago). It does Wikipedia no good to delete it or to force them to make an additional click. Arguments to delete because no one is going to forget typing the closing parentheses or because of auto-fill should be ignored, as the use case for this is almost exclusively linking from external sites. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the formatting issues with Reddit's Markdown language for its posts that is the primary reason for these redirects existing in the first place: [4]. Very few people are using these links deliberately. They are being forced to, and we should've deliberately inconvenience readers because of minor stylistic issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be responsible for creating redirects accounting for bugs in other platform's errors. A bug that has been fixed years ago, from the looks of it, being fixed well before the reddit post was made, as implied. People using old reddit are doing so knowing full well its limitations. So now there's zero surprise that a parenthesis could go missing at the end of a URL, as it's been long-since documented and understood, apparently. The solution is not "allow infinite redirects with botched-up disambiguation because old-reddit users might run into a broken link here and there, despite it being fixed for many years but refuse to upgrade to avoid it"; or, we can stop supporting "Foo (bar" titles due to the pollution it causes on our end, allowing implausible misnomers among redirects, splitting histories and causing messes and clutter that can be simply avoided. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Also in response to the reddit poster's query linked, I tried the second hyperlink on both old and new reddit and it seems to be working fine for me; I'm getting to Paris (surname) both ways.) Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i hear the error (whatever it actually is) was fixed ages ago cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it does not work for me in Old Reddit either on PC or mobile, with or without RES. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reddit is an absolutely massive website with hundreds of millions of users, so even a small percentage of Old Reddit users represents a significant population. Old Reddit users aren't people who just forgot to upgrade or something, there are real downsides to New Reddit (mainly ads-related) that lead them to opt out. A bug being documented is not equal to the bug being understood and 100% of end users having the technical know-how to avoid it. While not a scientific survey of any sort, anecdotal open-source evidence [5] seems to show that approximately 5% of Reddit users seem to use the older version.
No one is saying that we should enthusiastically encourage or go out of our way to create a duplicate redirect for each page with a parenthetical disambiguator. But for ones that did get created, someone found them WP:USEFUL and where we have proof that they do get use as is the case here, which are two reasons explicitly listed as the #4 and 5reasons not to delete redirects at WP:R#KEEP, where's the harm in keep them? Far more editor time has been wasted trying to delete these than has ever been spent on creating them in the first place. These titles are not misnomers, with only a clear typographical difference and the page histories are usually extremely short. Many of these have also stood a decade or more without any serious issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are pointless, as people are unlikely to be typing in the full disambiguation anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – Many chat programs and similar, when making links clickable, automatically omit a trailing parenthesis, considering it part of the surrounding punctuation, so redirects repairing this are always useful. Gawaon (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Vote changed to delete all, since, as Shhhnotsoloud pointed out (below), our software already handles this automatically, so there is no need for creating or maintaining such links manually. Gawaon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP. Would I have created these redirects myself? Possibly not. Do they do any harm to the encylopedia and/or readers by existing? Also no - as far as I can see, they are practically harmless. I'm not seeing how these types of redirect are problematic enough to warrant deletion, and deletion may well do harm by breaking external links (WP:R#K4). To answer Utopes' point above, we're not responsible for creating these sorts of redirects for every title that exists, but I don't see how deleting the ones that do get created benefits the project. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are exemplar cases of WP:RDAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity are any of the other examples at RDAB the result of programming error? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patar knight: I don't know, but arguably Wikipedia isn't here to provide redirects to get around everyone else's bugs. (And anyway ... in old Reddit a redirect that misses the trailing parenthesis gets you to, for example, Harris (surname. The first thing at that page and many others is "Did you mean: Harris (surname)?". We simply don't need these redirects, and already have a useful essay which lists the kind of redirects we don't need. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel1943 JoshuaAuble (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marlow.[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 💬 14:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. I don't think anybody would add a period at the end of the desired page name, therefore, it can be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was at this title for about 13 minutes in 2006 and per Wikipedia.. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G6, this is a redirect left behind from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful --Lenticel (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (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).

Snow White remake[edit]

Could refer to most films listed at {{Snow White}}, such as Mirror Mirror (film) and Snow White and the Huntsman. There really is no expectation that this redirect references Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) since there have been so many film versions of Snow White that are not Disney-related. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Snow White (disambiguation), basically everything on that list after the first is a remake by definition. Alternatively, delete due to being vague and unhelpful (deletion is probably my first choice now that I think about it more), Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out what article people are imagining in their heads by typing "remake" nowadays. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I'm striking my retarget !vote. Wikipedia is not a search engine, "remake" is not useful in the form of a redirect. Currently it refers to anything on that list, but it's too vague and subjective in doing so (as remake isn't mentioned). Would be ridiculous to have Foo remake target any disambiguation page with multiple pieces of fiction with the same title, so let Google or Wikipedia's search function figure it out. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Snow White (disambiguation) as plausible search by a reader. I'm also fine with delete due to the malformed "remake" modifier --Lenticel (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Utopes, and tag as R from incomplete disambig. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator preference: Delete per above. The existence of the word "remake" and since it makes it so the redirect is not a word-for-word title variation of "Snow White" leave me to believe that the nominated redirect is better deleted than targeting a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Snow White (franchise) that has got hatnotes to anything else the reader may be interested in. I find this a better alternative to Snow White (disambiguation). I find suffixing of "remake" to a film as a valid search term. I would do the same if I was looking for a film remake, or the latest remake if there are multiple. Jay 💬 06:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I'm aware, the upcoming Disney remake is the most notable (if not the only) remake of a previous film titled Snow White. Mirror Mirror (film) is not a remake of a prioer film; neither is Snow White and the Huntsman. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per InfiniteNexus's argument. Fieari (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Infinite. Disney's remake is the only one I've seen referred to as this and is the most notable as Infinite said. The others do not qualify as a remake. Retargeting to a DAB page and deleting are not viable options as we are supposed to help guide readers, and with the amount of traction the upcoming film has gotten already, I'm sure this will remain a useful search term as those looking for the "Snow White remake" are most likely looking for the 2025 film. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2024 (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) 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete every new unrelated iteration is a new remake -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Face Of Dorian Gray(single)[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 💬 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible disambiguation typo. No pages link to it, therefore, it can be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete it was at this title for a few months in 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G6, as this is a redirect left behind from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2024 (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).

Nikolas Macko[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 💬 08:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macko is not listed at the page for this shooting. What I will note, is that looking up "Nikolas Macko", the shooting almost didn't come up on the first page (was the very last result for me)" This might make sense as it took place in 2007, and as time progresses, older results are less likely to be promoted higher. But in any event, we have no content on this individual. In 2007, they attempted to fend off the shooting from taking place. But, these efforts are not described anywhere on the page or on Wikipedia, to my understanding. I don't think that this is a particularly useful redirect, in the article's current state. Just as Google displays a wide assortment of topics related to different "Nikolas Macko"s, if he isn't discussed in the article any longer, I don't think this redirect is necessary either. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be worth noting, this redirect was fully protected almost IMMEDIATELY after creation in 2007, and remained fully protected for another 17 years up until just a month ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: Judging by the Google search results for "Nikolas Macko" "shooting", a mention could potentially be added to the article. What do you think? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I mean, it used to be a part of a pretty hefty section a long time back, during the revisions I checked in 2007. The shooting article was getting what looks like 1-2k edits every day during the timeline and immediate aftermath of the shooting (the article now has nearly 14k revisions). I have to imagine that Macko's segment was removed for a reason. The article was mainly talking about his eye-witness reporting. I don't really see a need to mention Macko, especially when looking at recent Google search results, the shooting is now really low. I don't want to force in his name into the article if it doesn't need to be. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:55, 19 April 2024 (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) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: don't need to associate a living person who's only connection seems to be an eyewitness. If he gets more, sustained coverage, then of course that could be added to the article and the redirect recreated (or what have you). Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (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).

Democratic Labour Party (historical)[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. There was an opinion regarding the RfD deletion of the corresponding "Labor" redirect. It may be taken up at an appropriate forum as it pertains to an RfD close. Jay 💬 08:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A spelling variation of recently deleted Democratic Labor Party (historical). Likely not the same case as the Labor vs Labour spelling distinction has proven to represent different parties, but this disambiguation still might not be the most helpful as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:24, 17 April 2024 (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) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2024 (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).

Ahmed adoodie[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gag name not mentioned at the target article. Additionally, I have not found any mention of it on this list (although it is user-generated and could be incomplete).

A variant of this gag name had been used in the Simpsons episode 24 Minutes according to the article, but spelt as 'Ahmed Adoudi'. Regardless, I don't think that this joke name is notable enough to be a redirect to any articles involving this. Xeroctic (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (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) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (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).

Basilan Unity Party[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Unity" or this party at the target page, people searching for this topic will not receive any information about this at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asenso Abrenio is another example of an undiscussed party that was recently deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 17 April 2024 (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) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (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).

Jau Bai Gavat Unseen[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a piece of programming, although it is not mentioned or discussed at the target article, and creates the picture that we have something about this topic when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (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) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (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).

Drama Juniors Marathi[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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of any programming with this title at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (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) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (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).

Mental gymnastics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Mental gymnastics

Liquid nails[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Liquid nails

PanoramaMaker[edit]

There is no information about a panorama maker at the target stub, much less a brand called PanoramaMaker. Not currently a helpful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:25, 18 April 2024 (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) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modmin[edit]

No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (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) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaImpression[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. Refine to #Products. Jay 💬 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of MediaImpression at the target page. Neither this, nor "ArcSoft MediaImpression" are useful redirects in the article's current state, as we have no information at the stub for this subtopic. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't remember creating the ArcSoft MediaImpression redirect, checking the history confirms that it was in the article at that time but was later removed.
Further checking backs up my guess that I most likely created it as an EXIF redirect for "software used".
In order to address this issue that is causing you concern, I have updated the article to mention it.
The redirect can now be left as-is or changed to ArcSoft#Products.
Ubcule (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 25 April 2024 (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).

TotalMedia Theatre[edit]

No mention of TotalMedia or TotalMedia Theatre at the target article. This is not a helpful redirect as there is no content about this subtopic, and the stub for ArcSoft does not help enlighten readers here. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Godiva syndrome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Lady Godiva syndrome

Lack of imagination[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. No participation despite a relist. Retargeting to Aphantasia from the nomination. Jay 💬 14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of imagination isn't an "argument from ignorance". It's not being able to imagine and doesn't have to do with arguments. If anything, it's Aphantasia. However, this has been a redirect here for the last 21 years. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 25 April 2024 (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).

Baak (Telugu Film)[edit]

Indian films sometimes do this thing were they reshoot 10% or less of the film in another language. Either way, there is absolutely no need for this redirect when Baak (film) exists. only 10% or less of people interest seeing Aranmanai 4 will likely opt to see this version due to low key release. DareshMohan (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is the same film as Baakghost. It looks like there is no point for this. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is obviously linked with the Afd of Baakghost. Here too, I suggest to Keep the redirect (and then rename. Baak (Telugu film) if needed, and maybe ask for page protection. Like that, history can be kept and further work on the article is easier. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Baak (film) without redirect as the title has incorrect capitalization which is arguably an RDAB error. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging sticks[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 💬 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things involve swinging sticks, not just pendulums. The word "swing" nor the word "stick" appear ever at the target page, and can refer to basically anything from baseball to hockey to swordplay and beyond. I'd be hardpressed to think this would be a likely search term for this topic only. Sure, the pendulum may look like "sticks that swing", but the inference of it being a pendulum I believe is the most noteworthy aspect. This is one of the few technical topics that is prominent for its recognizable name and functionality, not just being "sticks that swing". Utopes (talk / cont) 05:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bundling with comment: Not to mention the singular version, which would otherwise literally be just, a pendulum. Not sure why it goes to the double variant. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2024 (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).

Supplemental Result[edit]

A topic not discussed at the target page, as "supple" nor "supplement" ever appear at the target page. Was BLAR'd in 2017 as being based on almost entirely unreliable sources, but does not serve its purpose as a good redirect if there is no content to be read about this at PageRank. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google's Supplemental Results (technically still there - just not labeled as such) were not relevant to an article about the PageRank algorithm. Technically, the Supplemental Results are all the low-value content for which Google makes room available in its index, but they're not likely to be selected for competitive (high-interest) queries. Nor are the pages likely to be recrawled or refreshed very often. The only real connection anyone from Google ever confirmed was that these types of pages usually had very little PageRank. It would be more appropriate to redirect the page to the article about Google and add something there, assuming a suitable resource could be found (probably one of Danny Sullivan's articles from Search Engine Land from around 2006-2010). Michael Martinez (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from 2007: Google Dumps The Supplemental Results Label (searchengineland.com) Danny Sullivan now works for Google but in 2007 he was just a journalist covering search engines. Michael Martinez (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Force Entertainment[edit]

Neither "strike" nor "force" is listed at the target article, giving this title insufficient context as a redirect to the target article. There is no dedicated information on Wikipedia to this sub label. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike fingering[edit]

"Strike" not mentioned at the target either, and Cut fingering was recently deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Rectangle[edit]

No mention of a rectangle at the target article. And as per the box, no piece of geometry is getting split at the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Box[edit]

"Box" never appears at the target article, and certainly not splitting one. The only few mentions of "split" at the target are in reference to Viacom's. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soquid[edit]

A neologism portmanteau of a "solid liquid". Picked up by Wendy's, but not mentioned at target, and totally not an all encompassing term for a Frosty, especially for a term representing a space between two distinct phases of matter. See Quasi-solid / Semisolid. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solowheel[edit]

Targets the manufacturers section, but solowheel is not listed as a manufacturer of electric unicycles at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snaf[edit]

Was created as a non-notable slang term that was instantly BLAR'd, same-day reverted, and reverted back to a redirect yet again. Seems to have no business targeting the pieces of paper left behind after you hole-punch something. I never knew that these had a name, so there you go! Learn something new every day I guess, Wikipedia for you. There was Chav and Chad (slang) that were all in the mix around here, but as this is suitably short and not mentioned there or anywhere in this realm, it doesn't seem of use to keep this redirect around. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuggie[edit]

No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with Shruggie. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoob[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Shoob

Shoo-in[edit]

No mention of this word at the target, although it's pointed here since 2012. Perhaps a wiktionary redirect would be more appropriate? Not sure if there are other encyclopedic topics where this title could be a shoo-in.... :) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shman[edit]

No mention of the term "shman" at the target article. Pertaining to more pronounceable versions, sheman has a different target, while all external search engines were pointing me to topics related to shaman. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Dio[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 JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (video game). Heritage for the Future is actually another redirect, which already targets the same article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this variant of Dio at the target article, as the word "shadow" never appears at any point. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, he does. He appears as a secret boss in Heritage for the Future. Hansen SebastianTalk 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The target article is Dio Brando, not Heritage for the Future. The word "shadow" bears no mention on Dio's page. I'm neutral on retargeting to the video game if he appears as a secret boss, although the only mention on that page is a list entry. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shadow DIO (case sensitive) is a playable character (not a boss, that'd be DIO (still case sensitive) with his jacket) in hftf, so i'd say redirect there cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (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).

Sexy flash[edit]

Not called a "sexy flash" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not pornographic Macromedia Flash animation -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self loading freight[edit]

Vague term not mentioned at the target. While passengers might "load themselves onto an airplane", from a literal perspective anything that can move by itself is self-moving freight, and will not always be a passenger. Someone searching this term is very likely looking for something particularly specific, and if they really wanted to see the article for "passenger", they'd just look up "passenger" instead. Seems like keeping this as a blue link would be a disservice towards potential article creation for a transportation operator lingo. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scrmable[edit]

Is otherwise confusing, and would never be searched with this term to reach the target page. Also not mentioned, so users would have no idea why this term goes here instead of being an r from typo. If letter transpositions are considered good to target to the base word, this redirect insists that is not the case, as it considers "Scrmable" to be a separate topic to "Scramble" (correctly, imo!). Scramble is not a hard word to spell, so it would not benefit from having a typo in this style aimed there, especially because "scrmable" does not sound like "scramble" at all. On the flipside, because "scrmable" isn't mentioned at the target article either, it's not useful in its current form as it stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to have this particular example of transposed letters be a redirect. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton lax[edit]

No mention of "lax" or a lax team at the target, inferred from history. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We mention they have a facility that they use for lacrosse a regulation-size field for men's and women's soccer which also can be used for other sports such as lacrosse and they do have both men and women's lacrosse. So improving the article would be fine; but there's no reason to delete this redirect even as-is. Skynxnex (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Scocco[edit]

No mention of this passenger at the target article, and is not a useful redirect on its lonesome without context as to who this person is. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific sexism[edit]

"Scientific" is only said once in the lead, and "sexism" only appears once in the body, both in entirely different situations. While listed as an alternative name, there is nothing in the article to indicate that this is the case, and there seems like there'd be other sexism articles that this could refer to, as there are also mentions of "scientific" at sexism as well. Seems as if this is an otherwise ambiguous term that has a lot of possibilities due to the lack of clarity between "science" and "sexism". Utopes (talk / cont) 03:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scary sharp[edit]

No mention of a "scary sharp" method of sharpening at the title. The word "scary" does not appear at the target, and the only time "sharp" appears is in the form of "sharpening", but nothing about a "sharp" on it's own. Non-notable technique which was BLAR'd this time last year. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Rocks[edit]

No mention of a children's programming "Saturday Rocks" at the title. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali O'Shea and etc.[edit]

A list of characters from Fair City not mentioned at the target in any form. In these cases for Fair City redirects, my interpretation a "mention" is generous; this is just a list of names on a table that are only said once, but nevertheless at least they exist, and sometimes the boxes might make allusions to characters that didn't even MAKE a table entry. But for the titles included in this nomination, they cannot say the same re: having even a bare bones namedrop. They either appear nowhere on this list, or are an alternative name mentioned nowhere on this list. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will note, for navigation purposes, the titles in this nomination are sorted from oldest at the top and newest at the bottom. Some of the older titles do have a light history, but none of the newer ones do (i.e. nothing after the year 2008 has any history). And for those that do have history, a good chunk have either been through an AfD, are so minor that they were redirected in various short periods of time, or both. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanju Bhagat[edit]

No mention of "sanju" or "bhagat" at the target, or any context of his case of fetus in fetu. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samlor mcheu[edit]

No mention at the target, and could not find evidence of this spelling missing a vowel, and including an extra e. Seems implausible to me, although perhaps content at the page or a translation could clear this up. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S from Hell[edit]

No mention of this meme, or "hell", at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rute Gunnay[edit]

No mention of "Rute" or "Gunnay" mentioned at the target article, hasn't had content at this title since 2006. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rush (Leland Remix)[edit]

No mention of "Leland" or a remix of Rush is mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Rush (Troye Sivan song), where the Leland remix is listed twice: track on the associated Remixes EP and track on the CD single version.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTV News Inc.[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mention of RTV News at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roshutsu[edit]

Seems to be an alternate language version of exhibitionism, not mentioned at the target, and with no strong association to the target outside of what would be expected of WP:RLANG. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross and Rachel (song)[edit]

No mention of "Ross" or "Rachel" at the target singer's page, but also no mention at Jake Miller discography either. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roses (SoMo song)[edit]

No mention of a song called Roses at the target article, not a helpful redirect and indicates that we have content when we don't. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Homicide (Jaden Hossler song)[edit]

No mention of this song, "Romantic", or "Homicide" at the target article. The existence of a redirect indicates content that we don't have on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know where it's supposed to be, it's a song of his, but it didn't chart anywhere and fails WP:NSONG. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockman 4 Minus Infinity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ROM hack is not discussed at the target. No mention of "Minus", "infinity", "ROM", or "Hack" at the target page. The existence of a redirect indicates content at the target that we don't have and is never addressed, making this not a very useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this redirect: I was planning on adding content about the ROM hack to the article when I had time, but it slipped my mind. I do think it is notable enough for at least a brief mention, with several articles about it on the internet. [6], [7] [8] Also, as a well-known hack, it is a plausible search term, and it's mentioned in multiple other pages on WP, which makes it a useful redirect to have.
I do agree that it's awkward that it's not mentioned at the target page - would it help if I just used these sources to add a brief summary of what the hack is to the article? I'm not super familiar with the exact policies here, so if I'm misunderstanding something, I apologize. HappyWith (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Yes, if you add information about the hack to the article and the information stays, then the redirect will be kept. Neocorelight (Talk) 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added a short paragraph to the article. Guess we'll see if it stays. HappyWith (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to let you know, I've also made a redirect at R4MI to the same location. If this discussion gets closed as delete, that one should also probably get deleted. HappyWith (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is now mentioned with sources in the target. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:30, 27 April 2024 (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).

Rkkody[edit]

No mention of this former cult member at the target article, in any form, it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is actually mentioned. According to CBS News this was Chuck Humphrey's cult name. Humphrey is mentioned here. I could add a mention this was his name in the group, if you'd like? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riksenergi[edit]

No mention of this fictional agency/company (derived from the deleted categories) at the target role-playing game. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redwop[edit]

No mention or context as to what "redwop" is at the target article. Seems to be a company based on external searches, but such a company is not discussed at the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive X-Y cut[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 Document layout analysis. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "recursive", "x-y" or "cut" at the target article. Used to be its own article, but this seems to be a topic that isn't discussed at the overarching topic of "bitmaps". Utopes (talk / cont) 00:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget The topic appears to have been discussed in literature (e.g. [9], [10]), but would be more appropriate for Document layout analysis, to which I added a mention of it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:01, 25 April 2024 (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).

Rail transport in Socotra[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

We have nothing to say about rail transport at the target article. Anyone that types in "rail transport in socotra" but doesn't click on the article or glosses over the unrelated info about minibuses (on a hunt to find information on rail transport) will get the faulty impression that rail transport is discussed at the target. We don't have redirects for topics that DON'T exist on an island, and aren't mentioned as not existing. We wouldn't have Horse transport in Socotra, Plane transport in Socotra, or Spaceship transport in Socotra just because "the article says minibus transport, so therefore it's helpful to know that these don't exist." Alternatively, a red link is more explicit that a topic doesn't exist, as it doesn't make people question the topic's existence, and think "Why does this redirect exist if rail transport doesn't, is the article wrong? Surely there must be something to explain this discrepancy..." Utopes (talk / cont) 00:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rail transport in X is one of those topics we have myriad links for for historical (cultural?) reasons, unlike horse plane and spaceships. Suspect this is one of those. I lean towards delete, but not strongly. CMD (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments in the previous discussion. This is misleading due to the target not discussing this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I find it a bit funny for such a redirect to exist, especially because this island has literally no infrastructure Abo Yemen✉ 03:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, the existence of the redirect implies the existence of something that just isn't there. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This island barely has road infrastructure let alone rail. This redirect implies the existence of that which does not exist. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Sim Pro[edit]

No mention of "Rail", "Sim" or "Pro" at the target article. Was redirected here after a 2015 AfD as an "obvious alternative to AfD", but this topic seems to have never been discussed at the target before, and certainly not after. Not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Inns[edit]

No mention of Inns at the target article. Used to exist standalone, before being redirected into the list where it was presumably mentioned, but no longer. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R@ygold[edit]

No mention of "raygold" or "r@ygold" at the target article. Seems to be a tagline or username, maybe, although I haven't looked too far into how incorporable this topic might be into the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This court document from another case gives more information about the word, and it doesn't seem to be specific enough to warrant a redirect to this case in particular. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum realm[edit]

Realms are not discussed at the target page. With the existing of a conflicting Quantum Realm, there's no diffcaps differentiation in topics. Should have matching targets, with a hatnote at Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not the other way around. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I read a lot of QM and "realm" is not common. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Johnjbarton. As a professional QCD physicist, I can affirm that physicists are not keen on the word realm, tending to describe areas in real or abstract spaces as regions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm also a physicist, specialized in quantum information. The expression "quantum realm" is exceedingly rare. Let Marvel have it. Tercer (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: hatnote might be tricky since it's a paragraph in the middle of a section but something makes sense or even just a mention and link of quantum mechanics in the prose. Skynxnex (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatnote is trivial, just add {{redirect|quantum realm|the physics concept|quantum mechanics}} Paradoctor (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the corresponding Classical realm is missing. Quantum realm meaning the realm of quantum physics, and classical realm meaning the realm of classical physics (ie. the circumstanced under which each apply) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget without hatnote "Quantum realm" is not an idiom. Its meaning is clear from its component terms, so there is no need to disambiguate. Cf. green leaf. Paradoctor (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC); edified 12:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the large number of RSes that use "quantum realm" to refer to something that is not Marvel Comics [11][12] ; thus if this is retargetted, it will need a hatnote. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Any of them make idiomatic use of the term? That is, does any of them define it in a way that is not "somewhere where the quantums rule"? Because if not, then these uses refer to a WP:DICDEF meaning, and therefore do not concern us. Paradoctor (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have quantum scale as an incoming redirect, so we should direct people searching for quantum realm with a hatnote, as circumstance where quantum physics apply is covered in the article. It is a viable search term for someone looking for this, thus should carry a hatnote -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Scale" is not "realm". But whatever, this is not worth more of my time. Paradoctor (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: where the term is used and let Marvel have it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25&oldid=1222041550"