Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2024.

Oink! (computer game)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Oink! (computer game)

Wikipedia:FALSETITLE[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 as moot. Since the target was changed immediately after this nomination was made. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Popcornfud/The problem with false titles is not a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, we should not redirect to it with a Wikipedia: redirect or WP: shortcut. NebY (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved the essay to WP namespace, alongside another style essay I created, WP:ELEVAR. Popcornfud (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the essay has now been moved, this issue may be moot - however, there are a large number other redirects that exist from projectspace to userspace (see e.g. a lot of the entries in Category:Redirects to user namespace). I don't say this as a type of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; but rather, as evidence that a strong WP:SILENTCONSENSUS has formed that shortcuts from WP-space to userspace can be acceptable. (As has been noted at previous RfDs - e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26 § Wikipedia:RSCASTE, there is no blanket prohibition on pointing WP-space shortcuts to userspace essays.) As such, I wouldn't personally !vote to delete this redirect if the only reason for deletion was because it was a WP:-shortcut to userspace. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect makes it easier to mention this useful essay in edit comments. Until now, I've been pointing to false title, which describes the phenomenon, but doesn't argue why false titles shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe any such "silent consensus" exists mentioned by A smart kitten, but it's often more trouble than it's worth to hunt down, in general, for why these sometimes slip by. WP redirects to user-space essays should be very rare, reserved for user pages both famous and harmless ideally. This guidance appears to be controversial as well, although that isn't my main issue (I'd still !vote delete for pretty much any essay). SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as moot. No longer an XNR. Nothing in WP:SC explicitly states that these are verboten anyway. No other plausible targets have been presented. Etc. --NYKevin 09:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle may be a moot point (BrEng) – I do fear we risk giving a misleading impression of the status of user-space essays and am surprised there are so many other such redirects – but now that the essays's been moved, this nomination is indeed moot (AmEmg). As nominator, I'm happy for this to be closed with no action. NebY (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as moot and because there is no blanket prohibition on userspace essays having WP shortcuts. Not all (probably most) such essays should not have such shortcuts, but that is something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If NebY, Snowfire or anyone else wants to introduce such a prohibition they need to actively seek consensus to do so given the status quo has a long history. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Whatever makes the essay an actual rule throughout the site I'm all for. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:NYKevin. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of the current or former location of the target - Cross-namespace redirects are innapraopriate from the mainspace to, for example, the userspace or wikipedia namespace. However, this prohibition does not usually apply in other areas or ways. There are many redirects from the wikipedia namespace to the userspace and this is generally considered okay; see here for example (also a case some would have deemed a 'controversial' essay). Such a shortcut ("Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline.") confers no more or less authority to the content of a page. @Popcornfud: There is seemingly no issue with you keeping this in your userspace (as a userspace essay) and maintaining this wikipedia namespace shortcut, if you so desire. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:39, 1 March 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).

Pokemon hitmonlee[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search, also apparently created as vandalism!? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Redirects are WP:CHEAP and I can see this being useful for someone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a likely search term for the subject. The original sentence present at the title was created by a new user in their only edit, not worth keeping. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unless we want to create redirects for all of them as "Pokémon [name]". It's not the worst idea, but Hitmonlee already redirects here, so it doesn't even disambiguate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have no problem running a batch like that through AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose this idea. First of all, 'Pokémon' contains an accent mark (and 'Hitmonlee' may be a proper name that needs capitalized; unsure on that aspect). Secondly, and more to the greater point, would this be appropriate for every fantasy creature (e.g. a Digimon list)? Certainly not. Those searching can already adequately find a list of Pokémon. Take it a step further; this would not be appropriate for e.g. every Harry Potter x creature etc. WP:AFFINITY; why these creatures or characters (in any such list whether it be a tv show, video game, book series, etc.) being mass redirected in this way over any other set? And, moreover, why "Pokémon" before and not after the individual creature name (both are implausible, but it would seem that after would be a more common way to describe such things). Awful precedent is what such an action would establish. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:19, 24 February 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).

Polygonz[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo and wrong pokémon cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of generation IV Pokémon#Porygon-Z as a plausible misspelling, especially considering perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the very similarly named PolygonZ, which should probably be kept on Wikipedia, this redirect is a confusing WP:XY situation, and is lacking Porygon's key WP:SMALLDETAIL by having a lowercase z, instead of uppercase. This makes the title two (three as its missing the hyphen, but that's unlikely to be caught and not important for location purposes) modifications away from the Pokemon, and yet one pinky slip away from being a typo of Polygons, the R from plural that receives 104 monthly pageviews, of Polygon, receiving 25k monthly pageviews. For people that do type "polygon" instead of "porygon", the currently existing PolygonZ redirect would automatically fix and correct for those searches. If people make that spelling, and look up to see where they came from, most people would see the capital Z and immediately understand "oh, that's why I'm here". Without the capital Z, genuine polygon searchers may be validly confused about why they ended up on a list of Pokemon, especially because "Polygonz" is nowhere to be found at this new page. Because this redirect's lowercasing leaves it rendered like a regular word and not like a Pokemon, this exactly spelling and casing I don't think would make for a useful redirect, to either target, per WP:XY. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone not being sure how to capitalise the Pokemon name seems a much more likely use for this search than a typo for Polygons, but if the latter is actually common then we can add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not knowing how to capitalize the Z would get automatically corrected by the search bar, so people that use this term are already going to the Pokemon article. As the people that make this typo end up here, when they check above and see "PolygonZ", they'll absolutely know why due to the uppercase Z. This title, on the other hand, makes it unclear due the bold claim that "Polygonz" is more equivalent in meaning to "Porygon-Z" than it is to "Polygons", which is already several-assumptions-deep to even get to that point.
To be talking about the Pokemon, you already have to be A) spelling it incorrectly in multiple ways and B) lacking its most defining characteristic (the capital Z). The good news is that the latter is fixed automatically, so this redirect doesn't need to exist to enable that search, as its already enabled. But with the lowercase Z, it's far more plausible to be one keyboard button slip from polygons, a redirect which is now at 200 hits a month, than it is for Porygon-Z, to which none of the misspellings receive more than 5 hits, and Porygon-Z is only at 17. This is one of the few times that deletion adds information to readers, because reaching this page from an automatically-corrected "PolygonZ" redirect is leaps and bounds more useful than coming in from "Polygonz", which literally just looks like the word "Polygons" and does not look like a Pokemon name at all (which its already multiple-misspelling away from.) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing how to capitalize the Z would get automatically corrected by the search bar only in some circumstances does this happen, and whether it does or not depends on multiple factors. This means that it cannot be relied upon to take readers to the content they are looking for. -z is a very uncommon way to pluralise words in English, so unless you have evidence to the contrary it seems significantly less plausible than using standard English capitalisation rules for a non-standard capitalisation - especially as Wikipedia article titles routinely do not respect non-standard capitalisation styling of proper names. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let Search find the non-Pokemon mentions (that don't deserve a redirect). I would delete PolygonZ too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 25 February 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).

術[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lexeme in both Chinese and Japanese. Remsense诉 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we don't appear to have any other article this could point to. wikt:en:術 Shu (disambiguation) does not list some other article this could point to. ; if there are any other valid topics, it can be turned into a WP:CJKV disambiguation page -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think 65.92.247.66 is right. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:30, 27 February 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).

Arueus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deuete, entirely different letter with entirely different sound (3 vowels), and not a typo worth maintaining. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh my god i just noticed what you did cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not an expert on Proto Baltic language. But it does have a mention there. --Lenticel (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert either, but I'm not confident that'll be enough to draw the target, leaning not. Based on the article's contents, it looks to be in an example section for how adjectives are constructed, this one meaning the dual locative feminine of the adjective "suitable"... It's an interesting find though, thanks for grabbing the link ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 05:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Proto-Baltic_language#*i-stem_nouns per Lenticel (talk · contribs)'s comment - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "U" is pretty far from "C" on the standard keyboard and it makes a different sound, making the typo implausible. I don't think it should be redirected, let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as misspelling to Aureus (disambiguation) and optionally include the Baltic entry there. I have been twisting my tongue trying to pronounce these 🤪 Jay 💬 13:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as misspelling to Aureus as per Jay. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would this go to the disambiguation page and not just Aureus as an r from misspelling of that? That's a good find as a more-likely typo than Arceus (therefore retargeting is fine enough), but I'm definitely opposed to adding the Baltic word to the disambiguation page. We have no encyclopedic content about that word, as it's not a subject that receives coverage on Wikipedia, just a dicdef example used to showcase Baltic phonetics. If this is kept as an r from misspelling, it'd be more likely to be a misspelling of the primary topic (Aureus) rather than equally spread out at the disambiguation. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deuete per Utopes above. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no substantive mention anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aureus: as {{R from misspelling}}, rather than to the disambiguation page. This is not a plausible typo for Arceus per zxcvbnm. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with several obscure terms that this could possibly be a misspelling of and far below a pageview per day, I don't see how this could actually be of use to readers. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 4 March 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).

GOOMY[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 Get Out Of My Yard. signed, Rosguill talk 05:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search initially created as... a redirect for the initials of a song? would re-retargeting it be a better choice, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no affinity for all caps, or point back to Get Out of My Yard if wanted (where the initial redirect pointed), although that doesn't seem to have any higher affinity all caps either (but at least its an acronym). The target was changed to Pokemon by a now AC banned user. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PANDORA, or are we going to redirect the all-caps version of all article titles to them now? If not, there's no reason for it to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943 and WP:CHEAP. WP:PANDORA is actively misleading nonsense that directly contradicts long-standing guidelines and practice: keeping this redirect does not require, imply or encourage the creation of other redirects. Whether this redirect should or should not exist is completely independent of whether other redirects to other targets should or should not exist. Every redirect is evaluated on its own merits, not the merits of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Steel and Thryduulf, the cheap outcome for this redirect would be to retarget back onto Get Out of My Yard, I feel. This is the only subject on Wikipedia that could plausibly be referred to as "GOOMY" in all caps, due to it being an acronym and the WP:SMALLDETAILS that "Goomy" the Pokemon doesn't have. WP:RCHEAP is useful for a title with no other possibilities and not inhibiting any other searches. The decision to use capital letters instead of lowercase seems to imply wanting an acronym, which keeping on "Goomy" would inhibit the acronym's searchability. Could be worthwhile to target the album and hatnote the Pokemon, if those are the only two that use it. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 11 February 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, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Get Out Of My Yard as per Utopes and Maplestrip/Mable, with a Hatnote to List of generation VI Pokémon#Goomy. This, I feel, would fix the WP:XY problem here. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Get Out of My Yard known by the acronym? If so a retarget there makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose status quo (current target) per WP:PANDORA. An all caps redirect for the name of every Pokémon would be inappropriate; thus, setting a precedent of such stylization as kosher is unwise (bar affinity yet to be established in relation to the matter). Happy with retargeting this back to the album, a better target should it be proposed, or it being deleted. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, keeping this redirect would set no precedent (because we don't work on precedent, we evaluate each redirect on it's own merits), and would not mandate or encourage the creation of similar redirects - but even if it did that would not be relevant here per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Took the time to look at all the vast amount of redirects to List of generation I Pokémon and List of generation II Pokémon (did not continue through the rest of the generations); did not see any other instances of all-caps pokémon name redirect titles. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary topic, all caps notwithstanding. Although the redirect was created to target the song, it was (rightly) retargeted to the Pokemon as there was no corresponding lowercase redirect at the time in 2013 (The lowercase one was created in 2015). I don't see this as an ambiguous term, hence a hatnote to the song is not needed, unless the song article has a mention. Jay 💬 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck owing to the addition by Tavix. Jay 💬 06:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong meh - It probably should not target Get Out Of My Yard because there's no mention of the acronym at the target. It could be {{R from other capitalization}}, but I don't really see why you would capitalize it like that. The stats link appears to show zero pageviews. I'm not sure I believe that, but the tool did display plausible metrics when I tried it on United States instead, so I don't think it's broken. Overall, it's probably not useful, but WP:PANDORA (as cited by several past participants) does not appear to be a well-established basis for deleting a redirect. My overall impression, however, is that this is an exceedingly uninteresting redirect, relative to the amount of scrutiny it has received. I simply cannot bring myself to care much one way or the other whether the redirect is kept or deleted. But please don't relist this discussion again - if it's no consensus, then it's no consensus. RfD is too backlogged to spend much more effort on a minor edge case like this one. --NYKevin 06:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'll note that I have a love/hate relationship with WP:PANDORA itself lol. The idea it gives (that we shouldn't have redirects that are 'the user asking the searchbar a question', or other similar redirects that, without the redirect's existence, the search function would already easily direct the user to the correct page) is a compelling one, but the argument as to why (that it would set a dangerous precedent akin to "opening Pandora's box") is... immediately thrown out on its ear by WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's why, when I try to use similar arguments, I instead cite the passage via the shortcut WP:UNHELPFUL, as it instead points to what I feel is a more sound argument-- that because the search function can already do the redirects' job, said redirects don't actually help anyone. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of all the 13 mentions of "Goomy", none are all caps. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Get Out of My Yard, where I have added attestation of GOOMY there. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Get Out of My Yard: per Tavix. Redirect to the Pokemon Goomy does not make sense per Utopes. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget not that a mention has been added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 26 February 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).

Ferrucutus cerastes[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 Styracosaurus#In popular culture. ✗plicit 12:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Unmentioned fictional creatures in King Kong (2005 film) for similar discussion/consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These names are from the Skull Island book that accompanied the film. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per precedent. These redirects from names mentioned in supplemental material are actively unhelpful to the reader, when they don't show up in the actual article they redirect to. Let's put it in a different light: Say I typed Raichu into the search bar, and instead of the article we have on it, was redirected to a version of the article on Pokémon Red/Blue that had no active mention of Raichu itself and no link to any supplemental articles that might mention Raichu itself, such as List of generation I Pokémon. I'd actually be pretty upset, because I didn't want info on Pokémon itself, I wanted information on Raichu. Similarly, someone who types "Ferrucutus cerastes" into the search bar wouldn't be satisfied by this redirect to King Kong (2005 film), because the target article wouldn't have any information on the species they searched for. ...Unless, of course, someone updated the article to include this information somewhere, but given the lack of notability, I'm guessing that won't happen. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Skull Island (King Kong)#2005 remake 2 per FunkMonk. Jay 💬 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 24 February 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).

Anglican Church[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. A few different redirect targets and a move suggestion have been proposed, but none have gained a decisive following. signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget both to Church of England. These redirs are quite confusing, as they purport by their names to be about the church, an institution, but go to a page about the overall Christian tradition that evolved from the Church of England AKA the Anglican Church.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There are many churches within the Anglican movement, and as the prior nomination rationale points out, all other forms of Protestantism also follow this pattern (i.e. "X Church" redirects to "Xism"). Anglicanism should not be treated any differently, or else it's inconsistent. I might be convinced to dabify the redirect, if we have enough links for a DAB page, but we should maybe overhaul the whole space of Protestant redirects rather than just doing a one-off to this one. --NYKevin 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be various churches that are within the Anglican Communion, and perhaps even some that are not but call themselves Anglican anyway, but none of them are referred to as "the Anglican Church" or "the Anglican church". Both of those are stark obviously WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs for Church of England. Hatnotes exist for a reason, and one pointing to Anglican Communion and Anglicanism are entirely adequate, for anyone who arrives at Church of England via either of these redirects, but is actually looking for some offshoot that is "a church that happens to be Anglican". By way of analogy, lots of countries have "United States" in their official/long names, but United States goes to United States of America because that's what it almost always means. "Angican [C|c]hurch" almost always means "the Anglican Church", i.e. the Church of England, except in the unusual case of running into a phrase like "an Anglican church" with a broader meaning. Closer to home "Catholic [C|c}hurch" also has multiple meanings, but Catholic Church is the actual article title for the main meaning, the Roman Catholic Church, the latter being a redirect (that relationship might reasonably flip, but isn't important to the issue here of these two very confusing redirects).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I have no objection to reforming Protestant titles and redirects more broadly, where it makes historical and logical sense to do so, but this case is different from the typical ones. Treating Protestant denominations all as if they are same sort of thing is erroneous; WP:CONSISTENT applies to things that should be made consistent because they are of-a-kind; we do not impose false consistencies on unlike and unrelated things. As examples, there are no such things as "the Lutheran Church" or "the Methodist Church", i.e. an establishing single body; rather, Lutheranism and Methodism are generalized movements from which have sprouted specific national and factional churches that often have "Lutheran" or "Methodist" in their names. Anglicanism is exactly the opposite, with a central, originating body, commonly called the Anglican Church and officially the Church of England, from which the "-ism" arose and spread around, with some churches within that "-ism" also incidentally having "Anglican" in their names.

    All that said, a disambiguation page with Church of England at the top could work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Anglican Communion in line with The Anglican Church. There is already a hatnote to a DAB page there as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as stated, there are many Anglican churches, and only people in England would think of CofE being "the" church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Pope of Anglicanism. It would be like pointing Orthodox Church to the Moscovite Russian church Russian Orthodox Church and making the Patriarch of Moscovy the pope of all orthodox churches. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anglican Communion#Organisation where the various churches this can refer to are listed (or just Anglican Communion as a second preference). Not opposed to keeping either, but I think that The Anglican Church should share the same target as these two. I think moving Anglican Church (disambiguation) is reasonable also. I would oppose the suggested target however as not being the primary topic. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 24 February 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).

HYUNDAI[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 Hyundai. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to other Hyundai companies not just the motor company Isla🏳️‍⚧ 02:06, 24 February 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).

Competitiveness[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 Competition. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this redirect has exclusivity to its target in regards to his definition. For example, the article Competition exists, but that article seems to be set up as almost like a broad concept article. In the aforementioned article, Competition#Competitiveness exists, but I'm not sure if that's correct either. Maybe retarget to Competition (disambiguation) and let readers decide, or delete the redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_24&oldid=1216131978"