Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 18: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Template:For2: Added comment: fix the transclusions; oppose retargeting; weak delete
Line 37: Line 37:
* '''Fix the transclusions first''', then retarget per nom. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Fix the transclusions first''', then retarget per nom. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I've used the for2 template a handful of times, for exactly the reasoning outlined above. I see now that I should be using the for-multi template. Fixing transclusions first, as others have suggested, seems appropriate. [[User:Dmoore5556|Dmoore5556]] ([[User talk:Dmoore5556|talk]]) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I've used the for2 template a handful of times, for exactly the reasoning outlined above. I see now that I should be using the for-multi template. Fixing transclusions first, as others have suggested, seems appropriate. [[User:Dmoore5556|Dmoore5556]] ([[User talk:Dmoore5556|talk]]) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
*<p>'''Fix the transclusions; oppose retargeting; weak delete'''. I've done a fair amount of work towards cleaning up hatnote templates and created this redirect in the first place as a matter of renaming for clarity (see {{format link|Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 7#Changing hatnote template naming scheme to avoid numbers}} for context). Historically, we had a zillion wikitext-based templates with opaque numbers for different functionalities, and the "2" variants ''usually'' handled using custom text rather than making automatic wikilinks; {{tl|redirect2}} is an outlier that I haven't poked much at simply because the effort-to-utility ratio is low (it could be replaced with uses of {{tl|redirect-multi}}, but there are a few small behavioural inconsistencies between them that would need to be handled carefully). If we change this redirect, we should strongly consider making the same change to the other template redirects with the same pattern (see the earlier context link for a list).</p><p>I'm sympathetic to Kusma's argument for preserving old revisions, especially in terms of not retargeting to a similar template with different behaviour, but I would also oppose ''extraordinary'' efforts to perfectly preserve old revisions. I oppose retargeting because it is preferable to ''never'' use this redirect; we should ''always'' use template calls that use names that are as self-explanatory as practical. I would prefer to simply delete the redirect so that new calls are not introduced to the opaque name, and it is more self-explanatory to see a template redlink in an old revision than to see a call to a somewhat-different template that might produce something nonsensical. On the other hand, I don't see it as ''necessary'' to delete the redirect, and not deleting it does come with the advantage of naturally preserving old revisions.</p><p>I more generally support fixing the transclusions by bypassing the redirect, because that will result in calls to the current target template, {{tl|for-text}}, being more self-explanatory to editors. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]&#8202;&#124;[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]&#8202;&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]}&#125;</span> 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)</p>


====Resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl====
====Resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl====

Revision as of 19:36, 6 August 2023

July 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 18, 2023.

Skrullian Spymaster

I looked on Google and the different Marvel Comics websites and I found nothing mentioning a Skrullian Spymaster. I am assuming that it's creator @Lowellian: must've mistaken this name for Skrullian Skymaster. @BangJan1999: told me that this would be the place to have this redirect deleted. If any of you support or object to this, please state it in this suggestion. Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Skrull#Squadron Supreme (like Skrullian Skymaster) and add {{R from misspelling}}. I also see no evidence of a Skrullian Spymaster by googling, only Skrulls and a Spymaster villain, but the redirect gets several clicks a year regardless (with no incoming links from other articles). Easily could be an uncommon misspelling. ― Synpath 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would one suggestion also end up redirecting the misspelled link to List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the event that the Skrullian Skymaster information is transferred to that page should the outcome be retarget? I'm just making a suggestion if the outcome of this discussion is retarget. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I wouldn't preempt a content move, but instead add a comment to the subsection telling a future mover to retarget the associated redirects. Unless there's some Wiki tech that I don't know about (I don't know many things) that warns people that they're breaking redirects, which would make the comment redundant. ― Synpath 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would you do that? While I would want to keep the Skrull's involvement in the creation of Skrullian Skymaster on the Skrull's page, the character was merged their by Namenamenamenamename without doing the usual consensus. I just wanted to let you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have found MOS:COMMENT and the related MOS:RENAMESECTION helpful. The latter lists three bots which may help, but I didn't look into it. ― Synpath 19:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • One of those bots was shown to handle broken anchors. I can't say if any of them might help right now. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm unable to discern from the above whether Rtkat3 agrees with retarget over their original suggestion of deletion (in which case there would be a consensus to retarget). Others' input is also welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I still want the misspelled redirect up for deletion, but the first suggestion turned into a consultation @Rosguill:. We still haven't heard from anyone else yet including the user who created the redirect in the first place as the notification is on that person's talk page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also bundle Skymax, the Skrullian Spymaster created by the same user on the same day. Jay 💬 13:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had no idea that the redirect you brought up was also created by @Lowellian:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For2

I used this redirect expecting a template which produced something like:

For foo, see bar. For baz, see foobar.

similar to {{redirect2}}. I seem to not be alone, looking at random transclusions they all seem to use this shortcut this way. In lieu of the template I mentioned earlier, retarget to Template:For-multi. (and if this is closed as retarget I can fix the transclusions with AWB.) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ClydeFranklin: IMO, given your rationale, I'd say it would probably be better to bypass the transclusions now since closers of RFD are not required to do any work in the "Template:" namespace, and to avoid breaking anything of the closer just decides to retarget the redirects without anyone doing the cleanup beforehand. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, changing the behaviour of this shortcut would break old revisions of articles for little or no gain. By all means replace this redirect by a more suitable template, but please do not break historical uses. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The rationale makes sense, and the reason behind the proposal seems sound. I don't agree with the belief that retaining template redirects for historical revisions is necessary since if we did that with any/all templates, no real progress would be made on Wikipedia; the nominator offered to do the heavy lifting and bypass the transclusions if the redirect is retargeted, which resolves the potential issues the most important article revisions: the current revisions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective ReTarget per nom. I think the older examples of For2, were simply due to it being the second variation listed for For. So for those, when fixing the links, replacing with the full name, would seem to be appropriate in some cases. So I think this calls for careful fixing. - jc37 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the transclusions first after which I support. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the transclusions first, then retarget per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I've used the for2 template a handful of times, for exactly the reasoning outlined above. I see now that I should be using the for-multi template. Fixing transclusions first, as others have suggested, seems appropriate. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix the transclusions; oppose retargeting; weak delete. I've done a fair amount of work towards cleaning up hatnote templates and created this redirect in the first place as a matter of renaming for clarity (see Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 7 § Changing hatnote template naming scheme to avoid numbers for context). Historically, we had a zillion wikitext-based templates with opaque numbers for different functionalities, and the "2" variants usually handled using custom text rather than making automatic wikilinks; {{redirect2}} is an outlier that I haven't poked much at simply because the effort-to-utility ratio is low (it could be replaced with uses of {{redirect-multi}}, but there are a few small behavioural inconsistencies between them that would need to be handled carefully). If we change this redirect, we should strongly consider making the same change to the other template redirects with the same pattern (see the earlier context link for a list).

    I'm sympathetic to Kusma's argument for preserving old revisions, especially in terms of not retargeting to a similar template with different behaviour, but I would also oppose extraordinary efforts to perfectly preserve old revisions. I oppose retargeting because it is preferable to never use this redirect; we should always use template calls that use names that are as self-explanatory as practical. I would prefer to simply delete the redirect so that new calls are not introduced to the opaque name, and it is more self-explanatory to see a template redlink in an old revision than to see a call to a somewhat-different template that might produce something nonsensical. On the other hand, I don't see it as necessary to delete the redirect, and not deleting it does come with the advantage of naturally preserving old revisions.

    I more generally support fixing the transclusions by bypassing the redirect, because that will result in calls to the current target template, {{for-text}}, being more self-explanatory to editors. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl

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 Phenoxy herbicide#Resistance. The one non-struck delete !vote seemed to be ok with keeping/retargeting if a mention was added, which it was. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compound (w/ structure) is mentioned at target, but not resistance to it. Incoming links should be made to the just fenoxaprop-P-ethyl instead of this phrase if enwiki has no information about resistance, otherwise it is astonishing. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the link at the target to link to the compound and not the title of these redirects, so as to not be astonishing. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Resistance to quinclorac

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 Quinclorac#Resistance. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is not discussed in the target article. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ukraine ukraine ukraine

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 speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury per criterion R3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term if you were searching for the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I remember Trump tweeting "Russia, Russia, Russia" alot, but not a triple Ukraine. Unlikely search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I created it. If you listen to DJT he cites "Russia, Russia, Russia" and "Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine" as hoaxes so someone listening to a Trump speech may google it. --Volvlogia (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that it's a useful Wiki search term, even when uncapitalized and without commas? I genuinely don't think those following the saga would be using that search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this were a plausible search term for this topic (which is doubtful), the target doesn't mention it so the link is tenuous. This redirect is only going to get more surprising as time goes on as people become less familiar with the less notable things Trump has said in the past. As a note, Trump isn't the only person ([1]) or even the only politician ([2]) to have been reported emphatically repeating "Ukraine" in the news. Emphatic repetition isn't a uniquely Trumpian characteristic. – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Warehouse

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 Warehouse (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Warehouse is a new Chicago landmark site recently added to the List of Chicago Landmarks. I would like to create a page for The Warehouse i.e. the new Chicago landmark, but it currently redirects to The Warehouse Group page. I am a relatively inexperienced editor so thought I would ask for guidance here. Thanks in advance for your assistance and support. IntegrityPen (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can go into source mode (the wikitext editor) and replace all text with your article, like I did here. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the redirect to draft space (Draft:The Warehouse) and will start an article on your behalf. Just take it from there. Schwede66 07:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, IntegrityPen, I see that there is an existing article for this building at Warehouse (nightclub). I can't imagine that you'd want to set up another one in parallel to the nightclub. Schwede66 07:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

WPT:TEN

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. Consensus is clear. -- Tavix (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the [[WT:]] namespace alias already exists. Redundant and unused. This is the only page in the WPT: pseudo-namespace, which does not have community support. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. But create a WT:TEN redirect as the proper namespace. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"

Neither of these redirects' target articles contain the redirects' phrases or the word "transitional". Both target articles each include one instance of the word "transitions", but not necessarily in reference to "jobs" or "work". I've bundled these together due to their edit histories; about 15 years ago, these all essentially targeted the same place, but over time, editors and bots found a way to both have these redirects target different targets and leave editors scratching their heads trying to figure out how or why these terms would redirect readers to either of the current target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Transitional work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go due to the lack ot participation. Notified of this discussion at the talk pages of Presidentman's equally good targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like Presidentman's disambiguation. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If there are no sources using these words in the target articles, than these terms shouldn't point to them. Additionally, "transition" generally means change from A to B, and so this seems ridiculous to even be used for employment terms. To my knowledge, people don't get a middle job to help them change from one to another; they may start an apprenticeship, but I don't believe this would ever be described as a "transition" job.---Avatar317(talk) 05:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation per Presidentman seems reasonable. I would add to that disambiguation page vocational rehabilition (which mostly means easing the partially disabled back into the workforce) and rehabilitative employment (finding usually short-term work for ex-convicts), but I'm not sure we have any articles on these. Maybe we do; the terminology seems to vary wildly by agency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 USSC ethics disclosures

This is an unlikely and misleading search term. The reference discussing "disclosures" at the target is from 2022, not 2023, so the specificity of the year makes this problematic and unhelpful. The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and does not include information about ethical disclosures made in 2023 as this redirect would imply. The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas, which are described in more detail at Clarence Thomas#Nondisclosure of gifts, real estate sale, and wife's income. Finally, USSC is not a common initialism for the target, at least not as prevalent as SCOTUS. All of this combined makes this unlikely to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USSC isn't as common as SCOTUS but that doesn't mean its use can't be anticipated. I agree with the rest of your points. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's certainly a valid initialism, but unlike SCOTUS, USSC is ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a different USCC with ethics disclosures in 2023? You haven't nominated USSC for deletion but 2023 USSC ethics disclosures. – Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • The word revelations is 7th in the target section. The reference is not from 2022 but 2023 https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing
  • The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas You're making my case for me.
  • The next section includes mounting ethics scandals cited by https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel (including trips on yachts and private jets and disclose the sale of properties).
Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as there has been no further input after two relists, I'll just reiterate that there is nothing about ethics disclosures made in 2023 at the target, making this redirect misleading and meriting deletion. The section in fact describes nondisclosures. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Largoplazo: Would you like to summarize your opinion based on the three weeks of discussion? Jay 💬 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven justices released financial disclosure forms in June 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/politics/supreme-court-justices-financial-disclosures/index.html They submit disclosures, the problem is that they aren't complete. The redirect at least accurately describes the context; the context is just missing from the text. It should be added, rather than deleting the redirect. So, preferably, Keep after adding the relevant context. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titles with a space before the comma

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects represent the only two titles on Wikipedia with a space directly prior to a comma. Both of these redirects are WP:COSTLY and implausible due to the space before the comma. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh (or weak keep, I guess). Harmless, and redirects are cheap. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By themselves implausible, and they also potentially open a Pandora's box of other redirects which add unnecessary spaces; the precedent they set for other redirects isn't cheap. – Scyrme (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per Scyrme. These are bad to have around. BD2412 T 15:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and Scyrme. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 1st was only at the title for around 5 minutes and the 2nd was never at this title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Scyrme. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 19:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep cheap per Edward-Woodrow -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – don't like the precedent these set, especially when there's just two of them. In a vacuum, they'd be harmless, but I think the concern of bad precedent outweighs the very small potential usefulness. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typical WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ju-on -video side-

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Ju-on -video side-

Javanese Dragon

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 Nāga#Indonesia. Jay 💬 05:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. For the history of the redirect, it looks like this redirect was a stub article for about a day in 2012 prior to being merged (per this edit) into the target article; however, it does not look like there's anything in the target article that resembles what was in this redirect formerly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest retargeting to Mythology of Indonesia. This article seems to have had useful content at the time of its creation, and the only justification I can see for its merging into "dragon" so soon after that is that it was quite short and in need of improvement. But since the subject isn't covered there, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-created by someone with more expertise in the subject, it might be best to target it to an appropriate alternative. I briefly looked for more specific articles having to do with Javanese religion/mythology, but didn't see anything involving dragons, although Mythology of Indonesia does mention dragons. Or it could be recreated with its former text, but that looks to be in need of considerable improvement, and the subject is far enough beyond my scope of knowledge that I'm not confident I could make it acceptable. But of course, articles don't need to be perfect, and there is no deadline for improving them. So restoring the pre-merger version would be my second choice. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had a look into this, I think the reason it's hard to find much discussion of this is that it there is actually no such thing. I oppose the suggested target of Mythology of Indonesia since there is no discussion of dragons in Javanese mythology specifically, so someone searching this would not find anything useful. I am neutral between retargeting to Nāga#Indonesia (see the photos there for the dragon-like non-dragons; this appears to be what the original article was about) or restoring the original article. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Nāga#Indonesia. Probably the closest target for this redirect. Weak since Nagas and dragons aren't necessarily synonymous. --Lenticel (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Nāga#Indonesia- close enough, plausible search term.Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Multi-headed dragon

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 💬 06:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough, these concepts are not defined in the target article which identifies these concepts specifically. There are a few examples of multiple-headed dragons mentioned in the target article, in addition to one image of a multiple headed dragon being present in the target article, but I don't think that is enough to warrant these redirects targeting this page since there concepts are not specifically defined. In addition, there is an article with a subject that is probably the most related to these concepts, Polycephaly, but I did not see an appropriate place to retarget these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep where they are. These are plausible search terms, and while the target article may not discuss the concept specifically, readers who are redirected there might be expected to find the mentions that are there, and realize that there is no independent content under those titles as a result of the redirects. That may prompt editors to research the topic and write about it, either under "dragon" or under one of the redirects, which would be a good thing. I don't see any benefit to simply deleting the redirects. Conceivably readers might be looking for information on dragons in heraldry, or in fantastic literature (the Dungeons & Dragons version of Tiamat comes to mind), but "dragon" is probably the safest target unless someone wants to create an article under one of these titles. I don't think readers are as likely to be looking for polycephaly; that doesn't look like a good alternative to the present target or simply building an article out of one of the redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and potentially WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. If we started with the assumption that we must have a redirect for everything someone can plausibly search then yes, the current target is best. However that is not the case. There is very little about multiheaded dragons specifically in Dragon, and the existence of these redirects creates the false impression that there is such specific discussion. Anyone searching this will certainly still find dragon, and may well be searching this after having already read dragon. A7V2 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both redirects get a handful of clicks every month by pageview and Dragon has the broadest coverage for multi-headed dragons (14 by my count), though no two-headed ones. When I search "multi-headed dragon" the Dragon article doesn't top the list though it should, and the redirect will help that. However, I'm not familiar enough with how the Wikipedia search works to know if the reason the Dragon article isn't at the top of the list is because the redirect exists. ― Synpath 00:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above: {{r from related topic}}. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, and also tag {{R with possibilities}}. We could, I suppose, have an article solely on two-or-more-headed dragons, but it doesn't exist yet, and I see no clamor to create one. Also, any editor could add content to the current target article on multi-headedness in dragons. BD2412 T 15:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Great Sea-Centipede & Cetacean Centipede

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. The target now mentions them. Jay 💬 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these redirects are mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target articles subject unclear. In addition, both of these redirects formerly targeted Many-finned sea serpent, which was deleted per AFD in 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added cited mentions at the sea serpent article @Steel1943, Edward-Woodrow, and A7V2:. I don't think there's enough material for an actual article but I think it deserves a mention in the parent article. --Lenticel (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:POPCORN

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 Wikipedia:Drama. Consensus seems pretty clear. No reason to keep this open longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was RfD'd in 2019 but without a clear reason for deletion (arguably should have been speedily kept). I think it's worth revisiting that discussion with a proper rationale given.

The mentality of treating AN/I as theater is a very unhealthy one, and this redirect encourages that. AN/I is a place where we block and ban users, address serious harassment and abuse, and, ideally, try to deescalate tensions between good-faith users in disagreements. None of those are "popcorn"-worthy, and that people see them as such is frankly quite troubling, and contributes to the incessant drumbeat of useless driveby comments by people who see one of our most serious noticeboards as a spectacle.

That's not to say there's no place for comedy at or about AN/I. That's why I'm not RfDing WP:HAPPYPLACE. But the purpose of this redirect is not just levity, but trivialization. That is not something we should encourage. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 30 § Wikipedia:You can see Hell from here for a case of a similar redirect (to RfA) being deleted as promoting an unhealthy mentality. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: What about the redirects WP:Dramaboard, WP:CESSPIT, or WP:Great Dismal Swamp? I think all three of these also fall under redirects that "[treat] AN/I as theater". I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just curious about your opinion. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Freedom4U: The first is borderline, but at least doesn't imply taking pleasure in the drama. AN/I is a very dramatic place, but that doesn't mean we should take pleasure in that. So, like I said, borderline. The second and third seem like commentary on AN/I's failings, so I don't see an issue with them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like Tamzin's rationale here, but a corollary to "if you build it, they will come" is "if you have a process page on Wikipedia, someone will make a useless and/or snarky WP: link to it". I'd be sure that deleting this one, for the best reasons in the world, will fail to have any effect... not least because we can be sure that it will be recreated very soon by someone else wanting to make a point or a joke or a pointy-joke. — Trey Maturin™ 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trey Maturin: I agree it's probably Whac-A-Mole with things like this, but that's true of many classes of bad redirect, so I don't see it as a reason not to try. Also, if someone did recreate this exact redirect (or a near-identical one like WP:popcorn), that would be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReTarget to Wikipedia:Drama. Which, helpfully, also has a link to AN/I at the top. I think this is a good way to split the difference on this one. - jc37 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works for me. We can add this shortcut to the hatnote, which already refers to "the place where [WP:DRAMA] formerly redirected". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh- I'm not saying this is a healthy approach to to ANI, but... eh, let people think what they want. It gets used. I'm not strongly opposed to deletion, though. The retarget also seems reasonable. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Drama per Jc37. I don't share the nom's concern, but it's reasonable enough to just honour it. Only ~45 links point here, and their target can be inferred without much difficulty. J947 † edits 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Drama. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per above, and add a hatnote pointing to the previous target. CycloneYoris talk! 00:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per above. A hatnote to WP:ANI would be a good compromise. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The popcorn reference is taking in enjoyment of drama. The connection—and thus the concern—still exists by retargeting it there. That is not okay. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, what's the concern here? People thinking the wrong way? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this occasion calls for popcorn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per the above. While I grant the negative inference, it is an inference to be discussed rather than swept under the rug. BD2412 T 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Most commented youtube video

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 02:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE, #5. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's explained at the target though? J947 † edits 11:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is mentioned at the target, it doesn't seem to still be the most commented YouTube video (it's actually now deleted; the source is from 2007...). A quick google search brings up [3] as the current most-commented video (though I took it from wikitubia, so maybe not the most reliable source); that factoid is also mentioned at Amir Tataloo, though unsourced, but that's probably the best target if/when it's sourced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be deleted since it likely won't have a long term stable target? ― Synpath 00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this redirect is both currently incorrect and requires regular maintenance (retargeting) to be correct ... and even then, there's no guarantee there will be a place representing the "new subject" which this redirect refers. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Sickie

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These terms are not mentioned in either of the target articles. These redirects were discussed as a group in 2021, but no resolution was found. As it stands, the target articles contain no context about these terms, and in general, it is unclear on where exactly they should target, if anywhere. (For example, these redirects seem related to Sick, but that's probably an improper association as well.) For these reasons, I think these redirects should be deleted, but at the bare minimum I believe the redirects should all target the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget sicky sickie to absenteeism Dictionaries seem to define "sickie" as falsely claiming to be sick, so absenteeism is the more appropriate target IMO. See [4], [5], and [6] for example. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman: I'm assuming that you mean "retarget Sickie to Absenteeism"? Either way though, it's not really helpful for readers to be targeted to an article that does not mention or identify the redirects, given that the redirects themselves are not an alternative form or variation of the word "absenteeism". Without mention and per your explanation, seems the topic of these redirects could have WP:REDLINK potential as a subtopic of Absenteeism. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the catch. I could get behind a deletion per WP:REDLINK if there are enough sources for a separate article. A section in the preexisting one might be better though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's definitely sources for this (search for "chuck a sickie"/"chucking a sickie", it's common slang in Australia), but probably not enough for a standalone article. I don't think these should be kept without a brief mention. I'm not sure where in Absenteeism this mention could be added as there's no discussion of cultural significance etc. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just Australian slang. It's international. Some dictionaries explicitly label it as British English, but as I understand it's common in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well. The more common phrase is "pull a sickie" rather than "chuck", at least in British usage.
I don't think Absenteeism is the correct target for any of these redirects as that article defines its topic as a "habitual pattern" of "unplanned absences". Most mentions of sickness/health in that article are not in relation to falsely claimed illness, but rather in relation to medical explanations for absenteeism (that is, actual illnesses as a cause of a habitual pattern of unplanned absences). "Pulling a sickie" isn't generally a habitual activity, but rather a spontaneous thing (eg. dodging work for a day to go to an event, to sleep in, or to sleep off a hangover).
Sick leave defines its topic as "paid time off", but I'm not sure that "pulling a sickie" necessarily implies claiming sick pay; it just means claiming illness as an excuse to not get fired for absence. (In-fact, students dodging school rather than work are also said to be "pulling a sickie"; getting the sick pay isn't the point.) That said, I'm sure many people do falsely claim sick pay, so maybe it's the best target.
"Sickie" is close enough to "sick leave" to not be immediately surprising to readers, but the problem is Sick leave doesn't actually mention falsely claiming sick leave, with the article currently only covering legitimately claiming it. There is a single passing mention of absenteeism, but it's in the context of noting that "presenteeism" (going to work when you are in-fact actually sick) is a bigger economic problem. I'm leaning soft redirect to Wiktionary, until relevant content is added somewhere. (That also seemed to be the direction the last RfD was heading, although it ultimately didn't reach consensus.) – Scyrme (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric perspective

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Isometric perspective

Crown Colony of the Bahamas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Crown Colony of the Bahamas

Seek and Strike

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to target to one act who is signed to (but not involved in the operation of) the label when they've released material from other notable acts and are only briefly mentioned on the target page. Not aware of a more appropriate target so I would just delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or create article - Keep or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677 is there any particular reason you think it should be kept? Do you think the target should remain the same? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_18&oldid=1169053737"