Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Iranian Revolution 2022: really → currently
Line 41: Line 41:
A character from [[The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog]]. Not found anywhere on Wikipedia and has no reliable sources to include a mention. [[User:Pizzaplayer219|<b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>]][[User talk:Pizzaplayer219|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">[[special:Contributions/Pizzaplayer219|Contribs]]</sub> 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
A character from [[The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog]]. Not found anywhere on Wikipedia and has no reliable sources to include a mention. [[User:Pizzaplayer219|<b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>]][[User talk:Pizzaplayer219|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">[[special:Contributions/Pizzaplayer219|Contribs]]</sub> 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple ''video games''. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple ''video games''. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:One other possibility could be to retarget to [[Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Main episodes]] since Pseudo Sonic minus the - is the title of one of the episodes in then show. Regardless, the current target is not the correct location for this.--[[Special:Contributions/67.70.24.37|67.70.24.37]] ([[User talk:67.70.24.37|talk]]) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


====Crocbot====
====Crocbot====

Revision as of 21:45, 26 September 2022

September 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 26, 2022.

30th Street Station (Philadelphia) (NJT station)

The double disambiguator, especially formatted as such, makes this quite improbable. TartarTorte 21:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Revolution 2022

POV term not in wide use in RS, redirect caused by undiscussed page move, delete. I would have speedied this, but I know this is a controversial topic area. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Too early to call this a "revolution". It's not even at the same scale as the 2009 and 2019 protests I think. But regardless of the scale, if this series of protests get squashed by the Islamic Republic, just like the previous ones, without any significant change ensuing from it (at least a reform of the dress code rules), then I don't see how this would be considered "a revolution" on any level.--
Ideophagous (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OP.
— Czello 20:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not currently a revolution. The government of Iran has not changed, and nothing major enough has changed for it to be referred to as a revolution. While there are widespread protests, that's all that they are. TartarTorte 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moose (upcoming film)

Back when the trailer was released, VampireKilla moved the target to its current title-while yes, the main character is named Moose, this seems to be a working title that's no longer the case. While working titles are plausible redirects, what makes this problematic is the "upcoming" after the title when it's already been released, and plus it doesn't seem to be searched as much after that huge number of pageviews in the year of its release. I'd say delete this unless someone can provide a justification or alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (film)

I would like the redirects for The Kidnapping of Edgardo (film) and Draft:Untitled animated Spice Girls film retargeted for the following reasons. First, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara was announced to be moving forward without Steven Spielberg.[1] Second, the target article for the draft about the upcoming animated film about the Spice Girls is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A movie about kidnapped Italian Jew Edgardo Mortara is moving forward without Steven Spielberg", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 18, 2022, retrieved September 26, 2022

Pseudo-Sonic

A character from The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Not found anywhere on Wikipedia and has no reliable sources to include a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One other possibility could be to retarget to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Main episodes since Pseudo Sonic minus the - is the title of one of the episodes in then show. Regardless, the current target is not the correct location for this.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crocbot

Nothing about the character on Wikipedia. No reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Automatons

Apparently some robots from the Archie sonic series. Couldn’t find anything about them on Wikipedia or any reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JRR Tolkien/Sindarin

Yesterday, I nominated a redirect with similar formatting (The Silmarillion/Sindarin). I believe it falls into the same category: improbable search term, no meaningful page history, etc. Delete per same reasoning as my other nomination. TNstingray (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be the remnant of a long-outdated convention. No longer serves any purpose. Change to keep per Tamzin. Was not aware of the K4 rationale but this surely seems to apply. I guess they created that guideline for a reason so I will follow it. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outdated formatting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: still support deletion, I searched rather exhaustively for existing links on external pages and I don't think there are any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K4: Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including ... old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. If we're going to start deleting this kind of redirect, it should probably be an RfC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin: that'd be a splendid reason, but there actually aren't any: no Wikipedia articles at all. There are just deletion discussion pages and a couple of user pages. There is also no history to speak of, it's always been a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plessie

Not in article plus there is a lot of plausible targets. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete....no mention. Would be open to recreating redirect if someone is able to find a reliable source proving the character's relative notability and add the character back in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swoop (Mario)

Couldn’t find anything about a “Swoop” in the article, nor in any other article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete....no mention. I used to play Mario all the time and I've never heard of this character. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pom Pom (Mario)

No mention anywhere as far as I know. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete....no mention. Seems less plausible for inclusion than Plessie. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg Wart

Nothing relating to a “cyborg wart” in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mouser (Nintendo)

No mention anywhere. Only one mention in Super Mario Bros. 2 but it is small. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film) could equally point to Joel Kinnaman, who is also apparently slated to star in this film. The Bricklayer (upcoming film) could equally point to Nina Dobrev or Aaron Eckhart, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Revolver (upcoming film) could equally point to Maya Hawke or Ethan Hawke, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Does not make sense to point this redirect to only one of the various notable people who will be part of this subject. (Also, see Draft:The Bricklayer (upcoming film) or Draft:Revolver (upcoming film).) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect from film to director.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Revolver (upcoming film) and The Bricklayer (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paradoctor: If possible, please provide a guideline, essay, or previous discussion(s)that states this is precedence. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We redirect from creative works to their creators all the time. Unless the work is notable on its own, that's where I expect to find encyclopedic information about the work, as opposed to the narrow view from a production employee. Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for the explanation behind your rationale. As such, I just reviewed the verbiage of {{R from work}}, and since the template includes the verbiage "...or subject related to the work..., I believe there could be an equal claim that this template could be used for an actor slated to appear in the film. There's not really any evidence that I can see that proves the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for when searching these terms; without this solidified connection, this redirect poses the WP:XY ambiguous issue I had stated in my initial rationale. (Also, I'm going to attempt to merge all of these discussions since I think repeating the same statement on all is a bit cumbersome for both of us.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    merge all of these discussions I'd appreciate that. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Discussions merged together. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    First, I didn't say that the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for. I said that is where information about the work belongs and is expected to be found.
    there could be an equal claim Not at all. XY would apply among actors, sure. But the director is the unique, central role in a production. They are the author, they decide who works on the film, and they decide what the finished film looks like. Everyone else's contributions are subordinate to that.
    On a different tack, let's assume the film was released, but is not notable. Following your reasoning, we couldn't have any redirects from films to actors or directors. Paradoctor (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow your rationale, but there's still the issue of multiple choices of targets. Why not target, say, the production studio or producer, for example instead? Those could potentially be as closely connected to these subjects as the director. And even then, films have been notorious at times to change directors while in production. In addition, the aforementioned actors in my nomination statement also have their respective films mentioned in their filmographies, meaning the films are mentioned, but apparently not identified by more than just their name, in multiple articles. This is why I was hoping that either there was a policy/essay or precedence in place for this already; as far as I can tell, there's really no established place where these redirects should target, meaning the default resolution would be to delete them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Film producer: the director makes the creative decisions during the making of the production, the producer typically manages logistics and business operations Fine print aside, the director calls the shots about what the end result looks like.
    potentially be as closely connected to these subjects That's fine print. Edge cases exist, but they don't define the norm.
    change directors while in production Also fine print. A film can have several directors, so we decide on the merits of the case. The norm is one director, and AFAIK, this is the case with the three redirects under consideration.
    the default resolution As I pointed out before, that is not what in practice happens. I note that you didn't address my "different tack", either. The way I see it, what you are asking here for is a substantial policy discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "that is not what in practice happens" ... That's the problem, I don't see any information about what happens in practice anywhere. My "default resolution" is in regards to what usually occurs to redirects that are deemed ambiguous per WP:XY, such as the issue I see with these. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPGP

Did a search but could not see how this redirect and the target relates. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is an abbreviation of "North Pacific Garbage Patch", an alternative name for the target. I've added a sourced mention of that name to the lead (it was already used in a picture caption, but not introduced). The primary topic on Google is the National Poverty Graduation Programme (a programme of the Pakistani government), but we have absolutely no content on that at all. If we do get content about that (it seems notable at first glance) then this redirect can be retargetted there and a hatnote to the present target added but until then this is the most helpful target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Idoghor Melody: NPGP means North Pacific Garbage Patch, see for instance this Nature article which uses the acronym 41 times. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, who first described the patch, in 1988) explains at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/mar18/nop14-ocean-garbage-patches.html that the North Pacific Garbage Patch is one of several other patches, there is another one in the South Pacific Ocean for instance. Syced (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1.19.84

Not mentioned in target Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a mention. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my first thought was that this referred to 19 January 1984 in US date format, but there is no mention of 19 January in the 1984 article and while 1984 does occur in the 19 January article, it is only in reference to the birth of four sports people (football, ice hockey, motor racing) and the death of a fifth (ice hockey), none of which would make a suitable target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every term has to be included in the article, but those who have heard of the term or are familiar with the term; see movie quotes as an example. The VICE source cited in the article uses the term (link to such source is here), and multiple other RS's which aren't directly included in the article mention the term (see ArsTechnica (not to be confused with another ArsTechnica article currently cited in the target section), GamesHub, and GameRant). This should be sufficient proof to keep a redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will emphasize, since the last two comments seem to imply there is currently no mention, that I have reädded a mention, sourced to Vice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Winters

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget to Minecon, where she's mentioned twice. I say very weak because "on X date, Y said that Z would happen", when Z is an event that has since happened (or failed to happen), is bad writing and as such those mentions may well be removed someday. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she apparently works for Mojang Studios, which created Minecraft. Her tweets (not RS quoting her tweets, the tweets themselves) are cited in the Minecon article but that does not create a logical basis to redirect there. If she is notable enough for mention at Mojang Studios or another article, that would be one thing, but that does not seem to be the case at this time. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netherite

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget – Tamzin's suggestion is perfect. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mooshroom

No longer used or mentioned. It is tagged with r from page history but I can’t find anything relating to a merge. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glaucomflecken

I couldn't make up my mind where to target this redirect, so I created it just to bring it here (arbitrarily picking one of the two options for now). Either this should point to Glaucoma § Signs and symptoms as an {{avoided double redirect|Glaukomflecken}} + {{r from misspelling}}, or it should point to Dr. Glaucomflecken as an {{r from short name}}. On the one hand, WP:SMALLDETAILS would tend toward the latter, since the former is always(?) spelled with a k. On the other hand, Dr. Glaucomflecken's name is not generally abbreviated to just his fictional surname, so one could argue that someone searching just this word is more likely misspelling the glaucoma symptom. Thoughts? Again, the current target was an arbitrary choice, and for now I am undecided. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sperrung

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and nom. This is a German word that according to Wiktionary generally means "blocking" or "closing off", but in the context of psychiatry is use to mean specifically "thought blocking". There appear no particular affinity between thought blocking and the German language, and the word was removed from the article in 2020 by Desertarun with the explanation "no need for foreign language translations or explanations thereof". The word does appear elsewhere on the English Wikipedia, but only in the title of German-language references but at least mostly in the general sense (e.g. blocking of websites, tunnels and railways), indeed it's worth noting that de:Sperrung is a disambiguation page (there appears to be no article about thought blocking on the German Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I wondered if this was a word introduced by a German psychiatrist but it doesn't look like it and the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for the term. Hut 8.5 11:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked like an attempt at a German dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, Marshalll

Redirect from 2004 with typo in title (triple L). (Stone, Marshall exists and redirects to Marshall H. Stone.) Tea2min (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-substub

Misrepresentation of policy. Sub stubs do not qualify for speedy deletion under criteria a1 because they are sub stubs - A1 if for articles where it is impossible to determine the intended topic. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's quite possible for a sub-stub to be eligible for A1 speedy deletion, although I'd have said A3 (no content) was more likely and A7 is likely not uncommon either. However, it is also possible to write a sub-stub that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P500

Redirect to P-500 Bazalt. This is much better, as I requested for creating the redirect page P-500, which will redirect to that page. 176.88.86.128 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Valley River

These terms are unused in parlance and are unlikely to be searched for. The Delaware Valley is a term referring to the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. The Delaware River is a river that runs on the Eastern border of Pennsylvania dividing it from New Jersey and New York. TartarTorte 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since the valley takes its name from the Delaware River running through it, these redirects do seem properly targeted, though I agree there utility is likely minimal. There is also Delaware River Valley which targets Delaware Valley, though you could make an argument it too should target Delaware River, since it discusses the Upper and Central valleys that are not included in the primary usage of "Delaware Valley" which refers specifically to the lower valley near Philly. It looks like hatnotes and links between these two related topics could use some enhancement. It may also be useful to open a discussion regarding Delaware River Valley at Rfd pending the outcome of this Rfd discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noitaton hsilop esrever

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A sibling redirect reported at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_18#Noitaton Hsilop Esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And another one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Noitaton Hsilop esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the same arguments apply as to the twice-deleted Noitaton hsilop. If anything this is worse because it's less concise and writing "reverse" in reverse doesn't make sense as part of the joke; it's like a double negative. (Perhaps this discussion should be merged with one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop to keep everything in one place. Are there more redirects like this?) – Scyrme (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yez, it doesn't have to "make sense" as part of a joke, it doesn't have to be funny, we don't have to explain jokes (actually, we do not), it only must make sense as a potential search box input for the redirect to be valid per our guideline WP:REDIR. And that's what it does because as odd as it looks "noitaton hsilop esrever" and its variants are actually used in a few real-world publications (in a supposed-to-be humorous sense, yes, but, again, that's completely irrelevant). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the point stands: everything that applied to the other redirect applies to this one; the added text doesn't make it better. – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: I disagree that this should be merged into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop since the redirect nominated here is not solely capitalization mismatch since an extra word is included in the redirect's title. Too much of a WP:TRAINWRECK risk. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few (printed) publications, so people occasionally run into the term (in upper- and lowercase variants) in the real world wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia and rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat {{r from misnomer|correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. Per our criteria for redirects WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the official term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5. This is not weaking Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we would not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattiaspaul's comprehensive reasoning in both discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These arguments are the same as those raised in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop, and the same counterarguments apply.
    No-one is under the impression that "noitaton hsilop esrever" is a serious misnomer, "official term", or alternative name for this topic, so this a proposed solution to a fictional problem. All the hits are using it in the context of a joke, and joke redirects are a Pandora's box; redirecting jokes to related topics because it can be argued that the joke is common enough is a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or joke book; it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to clear up confusion about jokes. The phrase "noitaton hsilop esrever" does not appear at the target and is not a serious term relevant to that article. The redirect has no educational value because it's simply the phrase "reverse polish notation" backwards, not an actual topic which could have education value and therefore adds nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic; the encyclopaedia is not weakened by its absence or strengthened by its presence. – Scyrme (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pandora's box is as irrelevant here as it always is - the existence or otherwise of one redirect has no bearing on whether another should or should not exist because precedent is not binding and we evaluate every redirect on its own merits. Wikipedia's job is to clear up confusion (that is one of the main reason people look things up in an encyclopaedia), and it doesn't matter if that confusion stems from a joke, an academic research paper, a headline in the gutter press or anywhere else. When someone comes across this, doesn't know what it means, and looks it up here they will be taken to the article that educates them that the reference is to "reverse Polish notation". That's educating them right there, especially if they don't know what reverse Polish notation (which is quite probable if they don't get the joke immediately). Everything that helps readers find the content they are looking for strengthens the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. Same issue/problem applies. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is even less likely than noitaton hsilop as this doesn't even properly do the joke. It's reverse reverse polish notation, which should just be polish notation. These redirects are not helpful even in their current state and if the community cannot agree on whether the joke is to redirect to Polish Notation or Reverse Polish Notation than this joke, and therefore the redirect, is ambiguous under WP:XY. With regards to WP:REDIR, I can't find any of the arguments under Wikipedia:RPURPOSE that would justify the existence of this redirect. TartarTorte 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, we don't need a redirect here just because a few people have made a joke once. Highly implausible. eviolite (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and funny on-topic joke used in the real world. —Kusma (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a stupid joke is not by itself reason for deletion, but when there is nothing more to it than the stupid joke, I don't think this serves an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq scandal

There are numerous scandals that could be labelled as "Iraq scandal". I think the inclusion criteria could be a bit hard to develop if DABified, but it's a possibility. I am also ok with deletion as this seems to be broadly unused. TartarTorte 02:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Silmarillion/Sindarin

Unlikely format to search for (one would think users would search for either The Silmarillion or Sindarin). As such, it is a misleading and confusing redirect, and there does not seem to be any noteworthy page history despite what the notice says. Probably delete. TNstingray (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, no Wikipedia articles link to the page at all. There are just deletion discussion pages and a couple of users. Nothing to get all hot and RfCed about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page got 498 pageviews in 2021, meaning it's probably linked to from somewhere externally. While it's not necessarily our job to make sure all external links are appropriate, older ones, especially subpages, are WP:CHEAP redirects and this one seems to have some incoming traffic. TartarTorte 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. It's mentioned briefly at the end of a section in Hulk, but so briefly that I don't think a redirect to that page would be suitable. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Search Service

The SSS is a program of the College Board for high school students that "is an opt-in program that provides your contact information to colleges, exposing you to schools, scholarships, and opportunities — and filling your mailbox." It is not mentioned in the article, certainly not in the linked section, nor elsewhere on enwiki. MB 00:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mistapeo

Not mentioned in target. Searching doesn't find an RS relating this to Shamanism, but more recently it's from Man and His Symbols MB 00:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan dictator

I just want to make sure that this is an alright redirect. I know we have some strict rules about articles dealing with living people. The article has multiple sources that back up this claim and I would normally agree that this is correct. If it's clear that I'm wrong I'll withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep, only submitted it because it deals with a living person. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not redirect - This kind of redirect is inappropriate in my opinion. Even if there are sources that depict Ilham as a dictator, there are also sources that do not. This redirect is labeling, which I believe Wikipedia is not intended for. It's one thing to reflect how various sources describe someone; it's quite another to label someone. This, in my perspective, is not only unacceptable for BLP vise, but also drastically destroys neutrality balance. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the arguments for deletion are not policy based. BLP does not prohibit well-sourced criticism of living individuals, and there is no requirement for redirects to be neutral: "if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms". Aliyev's article already discusses the perception of him as a dictator and there are many RS that describe him as such (just a few examples: [3][4][5]) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. Is keeping that POV redirect policy based? I do not think so. "Azerbaijan dictator"? How does that kind of pointless POV redirect, which does not even seem grammatically correct, improves Wikipedia? The only reasonable explanation I can think of is to redirect Google searches for "Azerbaijan dictator" to the Ilham Aliyev article and that is not appropriate as per WP:G10. Such kind of labeling redirect will create immediate (without reading) impressions not only about the person, but also about the country. If an article states that someone is a dictator based on the sources supplied, that is perfectly OK; but, redirect with such a contentious labeling is inappropriate and distorts neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I at first was also hesitant but Aliyew is really often mentioned as a dictator and this also by European politicians and in useful sources for Wikipedia. More than the ones brought forward above are found here, here, here here,here, and here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Neither BLP nor any other policy prohibits Wikipedia using redirects from non-neutral search terms to neutrally-titled articles, indeed where a term is in widespread use (as here) such redirects are encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hut 8.5 According to WP:RNEUTRAL, using non-neutral language is permitted in some circumstances. WP:NPOVNAME, explaining that some circumstances, indicates that non-neutral terms are generally avoided on Wikipedia, with the exception of common names. "Azerbaijan dictator" is not a common name for Ilham Aliyev article.  It is a POV name, and enabling such redirection would be absurd. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 13:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a common name for him, but it is a common search term for him. Somebody using this search term on Wikipedia is looking for the encyclopaedia article about the only leader of Azerbaijan to be called a dictator and there is no policy based reason why we should make it harder for them to find that article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very selective interpretation of RNEUTRAL, which says quite clearly perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Lack of neutrality is pretty much the only reason you've offered for deleting this redirect. WP:NPOVNAME addresses article titles and isn't relevant here because this isn't an article. Hut 8.5 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France is bacon

"France is bacon" is a mondegreen, but is not mentioned there. I don't really like Francis Bacon or Scientia potentia est either as neither give a sufficient explanation. MB 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added the longer version which was created 7 years ago with an edit summary or "per reddit". It is just a confusing. MB 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (or Wikiquote). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic. I don't see any RS coverage of it to justify a mention anywhere, though, so yeah, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing a couple of mentions of the meme (it apparently resurfaced enough in 2019 for them to take note) in sites like The Poke that are not unreliable, but are also hardly bastions of in-depth journalism and there is also a 2013 article in the Global Times reporting on a similar emergence on Weibo (although Global Times is deprecated for being a tabloid that publishes fake news and Chinese government propaganda, I strongly suspect this particular story is neither). However these don't establish sufficient notability for a mention imo. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_26&oldid=1112548385"