Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:29, 12 March 2017

< March 8

March 10 >

March 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2017.

George W.

George W. → George W. Bush (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
George W → George W. Bush (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] – Added by George Ho (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted. This began as a redirect to the current target from 2004-08, it was then changed to a disambiguation page full of WP:PTMs and remained so for a few months before being redirected again, I'm not sure if there is a primary topic for a PTM like this one. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you have to get to the end of the 4th page of Google results for "George W" before you find something not related to the former president. Very clearly the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody notable is called "George W." Certainly not George W. Bush; George Washington would make far more sense as a target. But again, he's not called "George W." so the redirect does not need to exist. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dubya is frequently known as just "George W." because his father is "George H. W.", so I wouldn't say it's a PTM in the regular sense. Just search "George W is" on Google or similar, the results are all about Bush, including reliable sources. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dont belive the redirect should exist as George W Bush is not called George W Flow 234 (Nina) talk 12:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Flow234: the search results I found and the search results Nohomersryan reports finding show that actually, Geoge W Bush is referred to as just "George W". Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recently added George W as part of the discussion. I was going to vote "Disambiguate" because there is George Washington, but the search box also does partial matches. The results of George W (without quotation marks) are 200,000+. Therefore, the dabpage should not be full of partial matches if there are too many. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important education facilities in Pokhara

Important education facilities in Pokhara → List of educational institutions in Pokhara (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this will find a list of the education facilities in Pokhara at the target, including the important ones for whatever definition of important they choose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important Sikh Personalities

Important Sikh Personalities → List of Sikhs (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. However one defines importance, the information sought can be found at the target page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with caps on each word, there is no group or proper noun of such name. "Important" is different from notable. Is "Personality" a Sikh title or occupation? Also, can someone be a Sikh Personality? Or any religion personality? Usually I think of radio or television personalities and not a religion personality. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important milestones in Kannada literature

Important milestones in Kannada literature → List of milestones in Kannada literature (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important" was used not as a "peacock term" but rather to stress that these milestones set trends for future developments. However, the redirect to "List of milestones...." is okay and not an issue with me.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "important" is bolded in the list lead sentence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As opposed to all the minor, trivial milestones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to BDD's relisting comment, my view is that using "other" to redirect to a main list is potentially problematic because "other" implies they're looking for a list of non-top tier importance entries, which the main list wouldn't have. Using "important Xs" as a search term though should be seen as a rough, natural language analogue for searching for "List of X", which would have inclusion criteria which would keep out the less important entries. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought "important milestones" sounded tautological. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it reads to me as "selected list of the most significant milestones". To use a Wikipedia analogy, Wikipedia reaches a milestone every time a multiple of 100, 500, 1000, 500, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000, 250,000, 500,000, 1,000,000 etc articles/edits/pages/views/featured articles/etc is reached, and there are many more listed at Wikipedia:Milestones. A list of important milestones would be a subset of all those milestones. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown (botanist)

Robert Brown (botanist) → Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Robert Brown (the dab page). This was the whole reason we just had the RM discussion, "Robert Brown (botanist)" is ambiguous with Robert Brown (botanist, born 1842). Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget in principle. But there are an enormous number (900+) of incoming links that would need disambiguation. Any chance we could get a bot to replace the string "authority = [[Robert Brown (botanist)|R.Br.]]" with "authority = [[Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773)|R.Br.]]" (this would cover links in taxoboxes; it would be good if, when a taxobox link is present, and there's also a link in running text that both are replaced; see Cyrtostylis for an example of links in both taxobox and running text). Would it be premature to request a bot while redirect discussion is in progress? Plantdrew (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew:

Done I contracted a case of editcountitis and cured it by going into human-bot mode. There are still about 360 pages without any R.Br. pipes, so you may need to rely on evaluating them from the context of the surrounding text. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: but "R.Br." is always the same person (the Brownian motion Robert Brown), so they don't need evaluation. The simplest fix is to use [[R.Br.]]. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already fixed all the pages that have that link. Down to less than 180 pages left to do now. I'm down to assuming that any article mentioning the year 1810 is about the "prolific guy", since the other two weren't born yet that year. wbm1058 (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The dab page includes a large number of people who aren't botanists, so it's very unhelpful to redirect readers to this if they are looking for a botanist called "Robert Brown". We could make Robert Brown (botanist) a dab page just for botanists, but I believe that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. The Robert Brown born in 1773 is far, far more important as a botanist than any of the others, since Brownian motion is named after him. Also, if you search the IPNI for taxa with an authority including "R.Br.", then 11,294 records are found. "R.Br.bis" yields 2. "R.Br.ter" yields 10. There's absolutely no comparison between them. The huge number of incoming links also shows that editors expect "Robert Brown (botanist)" to be the Robert Brown. To quote WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That clearly applies here.

The argument that "Robert Brown (botanist)" is ambiguous with other botanists called "Robert Brown" is off the point. Whenever there's a primary topic that is selected as the article title, it's necessarily ambiguous with respect to other uses of the same title. I've requested more input from WikiProject Disambiguation members to help decide whether my understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is correct in this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) is the primary topic, but if he isn't then the redirect should point to Robert Brown#Scientists, with an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} tag. That makes the pertinent entries much easier to find. Nick Number (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:. See the essay at WP:PDAB for some background and links to previous discussions concerning this issue. While there is no consensus that a disambiguated term can't have a primary topic, in practice it's pretty rare for any partial disambiguation not to redirect to the dab page (the main exceptions are music related; songs, albums). Concerning the stuff we both work on, consider a hypothetical case where a well-known figure from Roman mythology, a genus of popular garden shrubs and a genus of fossil spiders share a name; do we want to be going through all the ambiguous (genus) redirects and start assigning them to primary topics? In various external search engines (checked Bing, Google, Duckduckgo), the Wikipedia article on R.Br. comes up as the first or second result for "Robert Brown" anyway, so readers arriving from external search engines don't really need to use any dab terms to find the article. Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PDAB supports my view. The example of Thriller (album) targeting Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is precisely analogous to Robert Brown (botanist) targeting Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Robert Brown#Scientists and add {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Even if there is one botanist more prominent than the other botanists, he's not necessarily the main topic for this name. Incomplete disambiguation is incomplete. Cnilep (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnilep: could you please explain to me how this is different from the "Thriller" example in WP:PDAB? The main topic for "Robert Brown (botanist)" is the Brownian motion Robert Brown. Indeed, Plantdrew's finding (which I've replicated) that searches for "Robert Brown" go to Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) suggests that actually he is the primary topic for "Robert Brown" and the article could be renamed accordingly (which I'm not proposing). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same for a second, but the British actor gets about as many page views, to say nothing of all the other Robert Browns collectively. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't proposing renaming the article. Although "R.Br." is (in my view) the main topic for "Robert Brown (botanist)" according to WP:PDAB, by the same logic he's not for "Robert Brown". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: the short answer is, "No I couldn't." The longer answer is that (1) I did not have in mind, and don't entirely share – to the extent that I understand them – the views expressed in PDAB; (2) PDAB is an essay, not a policy; it has some support but lacks consensus; and (3) even on its own terms, PDAB doesn't seem to make an unambiguous recommendation that might be applied here. As I read it, the essay notes that partially disambiguated titles might have a main usage sometimes. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnilep: ok, well, if it doesn't have consensus that partially disambiguated titles can have a main use as redirects – and Thriller (album) is not the only example although it does appear to be unusual – then the essay needs to be changed to say this. If it is possible to have this kind of redirect, then I've not seen any arguments as to why this doesn't apply to "Robert Brown (botanist)" given that as a botanist he's by far the most important person, with more than 1000× as many scientific names to his credit than any other Robert Brown and has Brownian motion named after him – a phenomenon always used as evidence in teaching the atomic theory of matter. Alternatively, if it is consensus that partially disambiguated titles can't have a main use as redirects, then we should revisit moving the article in the first place.

I really don't want to be "dog in the manger" over this, but before we end up with 900+ links to a disambiguation page to sort out, and forcing plant editors to use an unnatural piped link, I want to see convincing arguments that retargeting to the dab page is necessary, and I haven't seen them so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one thing I would add is that those who support retargeting should make it clear that they are prepared to sort out the 900+ links that would then go to a dab page. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more appropriate to put to those who moved the target article in the first place. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Robert Brown (the DAB page) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. They both have standard author abbreviations, and IMO that is decisive. They are both notable botanists, and therefore Robert Brown (botanist) is ambiguous. Without a retarget, I expect that some links relating to the man born in 1842 will point to the article about the man born in 1773 - which would be (a) wrong and (b) confusing to readers. From past experience, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the existing links to Robert Brown (botanist) point to the wrong article.

The amount of labour required to sort out the consequences of a move is neither here nor there (and I've seen worse). The important thing is to get it right, for the benefit of readers. Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After disambiguating over 500 links, I got the impression that he was an Australian botanist, so disambiguation by birth year was a good idea. wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even Robert Brown (New Zealand botanist) was born in Scotland, so all three botanists named Robert Brown were born in Scotland. wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We still have the "ambiguous" categories Category:Robert Brown (botanist) and Category:Works by Robert Brown (botanist). Care should be taken to avoid links to Category:Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) and Category:Works by Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) if these aren't moved. Less than 100 pages left to disambiguate. wbm1058 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) over redirect. The current target, a highly significant scientist and namesake of Brownian motion is the primary topic for this search term. This is borne out by the page view statistics [1], where the current target gets 388 hits a day, while the other two botanists get 10 and 1 hit(s) per day, combining for just under 2.76% of all views. The hatnote currently at the target serves readers fine if they are looking for those two, but evidently readers are not really that interested in them. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I think this is a non-starter inasmuch as the RfD started from a consensus-backed move from the redirect to the current title. (As a matter of substance, I don't necessarily disagree with you.) --BDD (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks mostly to Wbm1058, with a little work on less straightforward cases myself, no article space links to this redirect remain, and it could be retargetted to the dab page with no further disambiguation work required. Between the standard botany author abbreviation "R.Br.", dates of activity, and basic biographical details of Brown's life, I found only two articles where "Robert Brown (botanist)" was remotely ambiguous. Thomas Herbert Maguire created a portrait of Robert Brown (and Maguire was active over the lives of all 3 botanist) and in List of University of Edinburgh people the guy born in 1844 could also be included. In both cases I thought it safe to assume the most prominent scientist was intended. Plantdrew (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I'm sympathetic to the WP:PDAB argument for keeping this, and think the campaign to completely eradicate all items on that list, where nothing is really broken, is a big distraction from fixing other things that are truly broken. I note, though that all the items on that list are pop-culture topics, so we would be setting a mini-precedent if we add the first title to the list that is not on a pop culture topic. I don't think New York (city) belongs on the list as the only other places named New York I see at the dab are hamlets, villages or towns. Nothing that would be considered a city. I also think including the birth year in the title is harmless and helpful and think it's going overboard to invoke WP:CONCISE to shorten such a title on the basis of it being a "primary topic PDAB". At this point, the major work to clarify this is done, this RfD having bumped up the priority for that task, and I don't think it matters much whether we keep or redirect to the dab. Those typing "Robert Brown" in the search box will see Robert Brown (botanist, born 1773) right above Robert Brown (botanist, born 1842) in the search results. They won't see Robert Brown (botanist), so this is an unlikely search term, and on that basis it could even be deleted. Watch the page views drop like a rock now that the links are disambiguated. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a useful search term for anyone who doesn't know there is more than one botanist with this name - not everybody uses the internal search engine, and not all of those who do have javascript available/enabled (which is required to see the search suggestions). Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obamagate

Obamagate → Donald Trump wiretapping claim (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

POV name. I haven't seen this term in any reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-neutral redirects are allowed, but this one is too vague and possibly WP:MADEUP. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am seeing some usage in conservative news sources, but this isn't as widespread as Obamacare, for example. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative keep - non-notable vague POV BLPVIO neologism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Does not appear to be in use. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acne

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 Wrong forum. This is actually a move request. This discussion has been transferred to Talk:Acne vulgaris#Requested move 9 March 2017. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acne → acne vulgaris (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

After the recently failed acne vulgaris FAC (see: [2]), I wanted to make sure my watchlist remained on fire (cf: [3]). I would like to reverse this redirect such that acne vulgaris redirects TO acne. I think this change is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, and if the change does occur then I would merge and redirect into the acne article many of the stubs that cover the various obscure subtypes of acne (see: [4]). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Acne should be the parent article, per WP:COMMONNAME. Subtypes of acne can be discussed summary-style, or if the daughter articles are stubs, merged back into the parent. Acne vulgaris, as the most common form, should redirect to the parent article, instead of vice versa. There should also be a terminology section at the top, explaining the origin of the terms and how they're used. Ideally the article would be well-illustrated to show the subtypes. Someone could write to dermatologists to ask for free images. I'm willing to help with that effort if help is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WAFWOT

WAFWOT → wiktionary:Appendix:Internet slang (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Wafwot → wiktionary:Appendix:Internet slang (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The acronym is no longer mentioned at the target article, and there's no separate entry at Wiktionary for the term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo PVV.png

File:Logo PVV.png → File:Partij voor de Vrijheid (logo).png (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Orphaned file redirect. File was moved over three years ago. The name is not a plausible search term for the target. Safiel (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this has been getting regular hits all the way through last year very recently suggesting that either it's linked from somewhere externally or was only orphaned very recently. I don't think that this is an implausible search term for the logo of an organisation known as PVV. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The orphaning I believe occurred recently. I believe another user recently updated any links that pointed to this redirect. Safiel (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Safiel: You are correct, and here's the diff. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create Commons:File:Logo PVV.png on Commons as a redirect to Commons:File:Name.jpg, then delete this redirect per {{Db-redircom}}. The acronym "PVV" is obviously ambiguous, and this is a method to fix the ambiguity issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The instructions for moving a file state, "After moving the file, please replace all uses of the old file link with the new one.", hence all file redirects should be orphaned. The guidance concerning file redirects states, "As when a page is moved, a redirect is left when moving files. In most cases the file redirect should remain on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.) or shadows a file on Commons."; they shouldn't be suppressed unless they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This means that there are many redirects in existence that are no different than this one (I create them regularly when renaming files), hence I see no reason to delete this one in particular. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College

Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College → Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering college → Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Shri Ramdeobaba kamla nehru engineering college → Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is Shri. It is not Sri. This title is neither all caps nor all small. The redirects exists for all caps and all small. See Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College and Shri ramdeobaba kamla nehru engineering college Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering college" gets quite a few hits. Are you sure this isn't an alternative spelling? - Bilby (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:In Indian languages Shri or Sri means honourable.It is used in front of sages, politicians etc. In North Indian languages, its Shri, in south indian langauges its Sri. This college is located in Nagpur, Maharashtra, India, which is part of North India. Also the college website mentions the title as Shri. Also the title has some words in caps and last word in small. (I mean first letter of each word). If the hits are of past few days, then they are solely mine(from my account or my ip). Please also see below for more explanation. Punyaboy (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've combined three separate nominations with identical rationales into one discussion. Bilbly's comment was left for the second one only. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I see no issue at all with the capitalisation of the first two - if this is an alternative name for the college (or a misspelling of one, and "Sri" → "Shri" is plausible in this case I think) then initial capitals for each word of a proper name would be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: See explanation below. The 2 redirects(which i consider correct and hence not listed here are Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College and Shri ramdeobaba kamla nehru engineering college. See these are either all capitals or all small (The first letter of each word i mean, barring the first letter of first word)).
  - Now the incorrect redirects which are listed for deletion.
  - Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College , It should not be Sri . It should be Shri. As explained in reply above to User Bilby comment.Hence delete.
  - Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering college , The first letter of last word is small. Should be in capitals. Hence delete.
  - Shri Ramdeobaba kamla nehru engineering college , The first letter of second word is capital. Should be small. Hence delete.
- We already have redirects with first letter in all capital and in all small, as mentioned above by me as correect redirects. This satisfies your statement then initial capitals for each word of a proper name would be correct.
- And yes old name of college is Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College and new name is Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management. I hope this clears everything. Punyaboy (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the official name is "Shri", but we're getting some hits (not many, but some) on the "Sri" spelling. Given regional variations, wouldn't that make it a reasonable (if incorrect) misspelling? - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College as a reasonable misspelling of the former name of the institution (it's nor reasonable to expect someone unfamiliar with Indian languages to know the difference between "Sri" and "Shri"). Weak keep the other two as harmless and not implausible alternate capitalisations of the first. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(the weak keep ones) Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College can be kept. But the other weak keep ones should be deleted. Else we can have a large number of redirects with changes in case(capital/small). Punyaboy (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah keep the correctly capitalised Sri versions, delete the miscapitalized versions as annoying and unnecessary. Siuenti (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population Science

Population Science → Department of Population Science and Human Resource Development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pop Science → Department of Population Science and Human Resource Development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very likely to cause confusion. Searchers entering the term are unlikely to be seeking the target department at University of Rajshahi. Thinking otherwise is the height of hubris. Worldbruce (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect Pop Science to Popular Science as a plausible synonym since the magazine is also known as PopSci. Weak Redirect Population Science to Population study as the closest plausible synonym. I'm fine with Delete by the way --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Pop Science to Popular Science per Lenticel. Retarget population science to Projections of population growth as I think that the reader is probably looking for something about the human population. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Pop Science to Popular Science while I'm not sure about the other one. Looking at human populations scientifically can involve demographics, economics, sociology, and a lot of different topics. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the title case of Pop Science warrants redirecting to the magazine Popular Science rather than the general topic that Pop science redirects to. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Pop Science to Popular science (the topic article not the magazine article). Neutral re Population Science. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Population Science to Population studies, and Pop Science to Popular Science. Deryck C. 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus for Pop Science may be clear, but the consensus for Population Science may not be. There is a chance this discussion may result in the redirects targeting different targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be explicit, I don't think these redirects targetting different articles would necessarily be a bad thing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
retarget pop science to Popular Science per above. Delete Population Science per WP:REDLINK: searching this phrase shows that it is used in the USA at any rate to designate certain research on cancer prevention (don't ask me why they chose that, I'm just reporting the Google search); it appears perhaps that in the UK it is used in a larger but related sense. It seems to me that we could have an article on this. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Ledger

John Ledger → Peter Bogdanovich (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
John Ledger (film) → Peter Bogdanovich (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Rather vague redirect as this can refer to a few non-notable people or a film still in development. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joey Camen who wrote the screenplay and is the creator of the story [5] [6] Originally planned to be directed by Joey Camen [7] but was later assigned to Peter Bogdanovich. [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple potential topic matches, none good enough. Deryck C. 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa May

Teresa May → Theresa May (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Restore the twodabs page as per the consensus developed during the AfD last Summer.

Note that the page is protected, so an administrator will need to add the RfD notice to the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating I've now added the tag. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A content dispute has been going on since 29 January 2017, which is when I attempted to restore both Teresa May and Teresa May (actress). A WP:TWODABS solution for "Teresa May" was the consensus at the time that the "Teresa May (actress)" article was deleted last Summer. The AfD is at WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination).
Currently, if a reader types in "Teresa May", the reader will be redirected to Theresa May (a large page with 120,000 characters), and then must determine that the hatnote is applicable where it states, "For other people with similar names, see Theresa May (disambiguation)." This hatnote link will take the reader to the Theresa May (disambiguation) page, from which Teresa May (actress) is linked.
See also Talk:Theresa May#Hatnote to Teresa May. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:KaisaL summed up the options at the AfD:
I think it [a hatnote to Teresa May (actress)] would be necessary if Teresa May redirects to Theresa May. The only other options would be a hard disambiguation page between the two at Teresa May instead, or keeping that directed to the porn actress. If this is kept, those are the three options really, you can't redirect someone with an article's name to somebody else and not mention them anywhere, as you're essentially orphaning them in our search. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that there is a fourth option of a redirect at "Teresa May" to "Theresa May (disambiguation)". There are two variations for "keeping that directed to the porn actress", those being (3a) redirect of "Teresa May" to "Teresa May (actress)", and (3b) retaining the "Teresa May" article in place. (3b) is the default case as this was the case starting on 2009-07-01, so has been the case for 7.5 years on Wikipedia. However, because of the edit histories, this should be done as a 100% merge with attribution, rather than as a page move. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incomplete presentation at best. It cherry picks support that was voiced given one set of circumstances and attempts to apply it to a situation that has changed multiple times, often even as various discussions were in progress. There was no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination) for there to be two separate disambiguation pages. And to be honest it isn't even clear what options 1 and 2 are here for there to be a 3a and 3b. FWIW, I'd be fine with moving Teresa May (actress) to Teresa May with a hatnote to the PM and to Theresa May (disambiguation), though I don't have any problem whatsoever with leaving things just as they are (leave Teresa May as redirect to Theresa May with a hatnote there to Theresa May (disambiguation)). However, there should not be multiple disambiguation pages for the same content (the easily confused spellings of Theresa/Teresa/Therese May). PS, I also do not think Teresa May should redirect to Teresa May (actress). If the actress is primary for that spelling, there is no need for parenthetical disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better solution is to delete Teresa May (actress) for the same reason that the AFD closed as delete: there are no sources for her career. Her "notabiity" derives solely form a coincidence of name. Ans, as User:KaisaL wrote, the hatnote will "probably actually end up causing occasional blog and social media posts about it just by doing it." which is unfair to the politician." Have I missed some new argument for restoring Teresa May (actress)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notifying participants in 2nd AfD @PatGallacher, Absolutelypuremilk, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, E.M.Gregory, KaisaL, Innisfree987, CalvinK, Shawn in Montreal, Northamerica1000, Bearcat, Aymatth2, Gene93k, Super Nintendo Chalmers, Ianmacm, CliffordJones, Montanabw, Tataral, Davey2010, Clpo13, Jack Upland, ZN3ukct, This is Paul, Spartaz, Hullaballoo, Refsworldlee, S Marshall, Mountaincirque, FeydHuxtable, and Sandstein: older ≠ wiser 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actress and model's notability, according to this version, is still wholly dependent on the coincidence of happening to share virtually the same name as the current Prime Minister, and she still lacks any properly sourceable evidence of passing our notability standards for either models or actresses. To get an article for that work, she would have to be sourceable to coverage dated contemporaneously to that work — namely, she doesn't pass GNG until you can get her over GNG on sources dated at the time her "notable" work was happening. So long as all of the sources in the article are still the 2016 blip of "hey, this other person has the same name as our Prime Minister" coverage, she's still just a BLP1E at best — if you want to convince me that she's notable enough for inclusion in her own right, she's going to need to clear GNG on sources that are clearly about Actress because Actress rather than "about" Actress because PM, namely sources which completely fail to mention PM Theresa at all. Once she's cleared GNG on that type of sourcing, then "got a blip of renewed coverage in 2016 because PM" can be added as a coda — but as long as the PM-blip is the entirety of the sourcing, then her notability as an actress and model has not been demonstrated. On that basis, her article is still deletable as not notable, and so there's still no basis to delete or change up the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I echo the view of...I'm not sure what's changed to reopen the Te May entry since the last AfD that closed as delete for lack of sourcing. Does not look in the entry like new coverage has turned up. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab per nom. This is RfD not AfD. All the time Teresa May (actress) exists (rightly or wrongly) we need to deal with it, not wish it away. A reader shouldn't have to go through multiple dab pages to get to what s/he wants. The twodabs page could survive with Teresa May (actress) as a redlink if necessary Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that Teresa May (actress) meets WP:GNG. As of February 2017, her BLP is pretty thin stuff. However, I'm not going to AfD it again. I'm also unconvinced that the average person needs to know that Britain's Prime Minister shares her name with an obscure porn star (minus the letter H). Some people were determined to point this out, despite the problems with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theresa May (disambiguation) because the current redirect to Theresa May makes no sense. There is no way that a "Theresa" (with an 'h') can be a primary topic for a "Teresa" without an 'h'. This avoids having two disambiguation pages; there would be only one disambiguation page Theresa May (disambiguation) with Teresa May redirecting to it. The disambiguation page already covers the variations in spelling. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Also be fine with changing Teresa May to redirect to Theresa May (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 11:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heya Just to note Teresa May (actress) has been nominated for deletion. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 06:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is that icon supposed to be? Am I the only one who sees a cartooney pair of testicles with a waving hand? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of whether Teresa May (actress) is deleted or not those who perhaps can't spell "Theresa" are probably looking for Theresa May anyway, I see no reason why we should confuse people all for the sake of confusing peope. –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with adding a hatnote? Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. It's a common misspelling, so even if the actress never had an article, this redirect would probably be created anyway. — Gorthian (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. Primary topic, as with Barack Obama. The glamour model and others are now on the dab page. and the actress page has been deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Send to disambiguation page. I have a feeling that people searching for "Teresa May" might equally be looking for the actress or one of the other people with similar names. Deryck C. 01:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per AngusWOOF. Now that the actress' page has been deleted, the UK prime minister is the clear primary topic as there is nobody who spells their name this way who has an article. The disambiguation page is hatnoted at the target article for those who are looking for someone different. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I think Bkonrad meant to ping you in their comment back on 23 February 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the existing redirect, do not DAB. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as {{R from misspelling}} per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophectomy

Apostrophectomy → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:CNR. Someone searching this concept would be surprised or confused to end up at a MoS page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apostrophe#Non-standard English use. I created this redirect specifically for use in edit summaries which is why it shows no incoming links, and deleting it will break these links. But I certainly agree it's not ideal as is (while noting that WP:CNR redirects to the essay at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not redirect). I removed it from the proposed target page. It was added to that page today, sourced to Urban Dictionary. Not a reliable source WP:UGC. A google search turned up 1k hits for the word, limited to forums and other similar usage. It's an insignificant neologism. Alsee (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal... it will break the links mentioned, pointlessly IMO as I really don't see the harm it does... and as I pointed out above, nom is based on an essay, not any official guideline or policy. I found it useful in building the encyclopedia, otherwise I would not have created it. But if it makes you happy, delete it. No big deal. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nom's essay is based on a guideline, WP:R#D6. My apologies for not being clear earlier. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that strictly speaking that claim is false, but let us not play with words. That new link to a guideline is certainly relevant, thank you for it.

WP:R#06 reads Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (my emphasis)

This redirect is a redirect to the MOS, and is not just potentially useful, it is in use as explained above, and it has existed for two years... perhaps not really longstanding.

I repeat, no big deal. If deleted it will just make my existing edit summaries useless (and I can't change them now), and future edit summaries a few characters longer, but I can easily set up a shortcut in the project namespace, where in hindsight it really belongs. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exception refers to shortcut redirects with the "MOS:" prefix. Because there is not a MOS namespace, those shortcuts are technically CNRs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

soft redirect to wikt:apostrophectomy, an entry I've just created. Per Andrewa there are links that will be broken if this is deleted but there is no mention of it on either the MOS page or article so neither will help someone looking to see what this is. The Wiktionary entry (which meets the criteria for inclusion there) will help people following the links and anyone else who searches for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Wikt redirect per Thryduulf. This is a fair search term; some readers will be looking for it as a portmanteau. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Republican

Roosevelt Republican → Factions in the Republican Party (United States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target, unsure if this is a notable term or not, also Roosevelt is ambiguous. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it helps, Theodore Roosevelt was (mostly) a Republican and Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't; in the latter case a "Roosevelt Republican" could be akin to a Blue Grit. Although I see now that's a Canadian invention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can only find a couple of uses of this, both in the context of Theodore Roosevelt, identifying a Republican Party member (or any conservative) as an adherent to Teddy Roosevelt's style of conservatism as a contrast (to some other kind of conservatism; Trumpism or whatever). For example, "'Roosevelt Republican' Zinke to face smooth path to Interior post". Honestly I'm not sure if this should point to some philosophy, maybe to Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt, to Roosevelt himself, or even to Ryan Zinke since he seems to have coined the term, or maybe best off deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find usage of "FDR Republican" in one source [9], but I'm still not convinced that this is a notable term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellan Tochkin

Kellan Tochkin → 2012–13 Missouri Mavericks season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

per WP:XY; multiple potential targets; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No more a reasonable redirect target than the other nine organized hockey teams for which he's played. Ravenswing 16:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Knight

Arabella Knight → Virgin Books (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Once was a stub article. She was deemed not notable and redirected to her publishing house, where she is not mentioned. — Gorthian (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation)

Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) → List of Västra Frölunda IF sections (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

G6 dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to

G8 dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to Widefox; talk 04:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom reopened ~~Nom withdrawn~~ - (see below) - summary - there was an underlying mess that now's sorted changes everything, so the best option is easier to show than explain -> done. Widefox; talk 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I declined G6 on this because I disagree (thus not uncontroversial) and G8 because the target clearly exists. This is a page move redirect, the page lived at this title since 2005. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you disagree with? This is the last of three Vastra Frolunda IF (disambiguation) Vaestra Froelunda IF (disambiguation). History isn't important for copyright (purely functional, so not copyrightable), and it had a primary topic so navigation is assumed to go through it. WP:SIAs are explicitly lists not dabs, so incorrect to target. Don't think I've been declined before (e.g. my delete log has Cell and Molecular Biology (disambiguation) a dab -> SIA) If you know others, I'll nom them. Widefox; talk 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with deletion. We normally keep redirects left behind by page moves when the page was at that title for a significant time because of external incoming links, because we can't update external sites to prevent linkrot but we want readers to be able to find the content they're looking for. So although there's no other reason to keep it really, the redirect pushes users using those sites to the location where the page was moved. And also what Patar knight said, the difference between a dab and a set index is pedantic to many readers who might look for the page at the (disambiguation) title anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the legacy aspect. But, how important is that on dab pages with a primary topic? My CSD log only goes back a few months, but this is the first time AFAIK it hasn't been deleted User:Widefox/CSD log. Surely that's a judgement call, else we'd never allow moves without leaving a redirect, and we do? Surely such a dab page (it's not at the basename) is of the lower/lowest priority? Widefox; talk 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moves within the same namespace that do not leave a redirect behind should be rare exceptions, which is why we only allow admins to make them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - crucially for this, extendedmovers like me can. I could have suppressed it, we wouldn't be here, next time I will. My mistake as I find dab work can be specialised work. I do this all the time, AFAIK none have been reverted, and my extendedmover has never been challenged. Widefox; talk 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF does "copyrightable" mean? In every country in the world outside USA, either something is copyright or it isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Narky Blert Adjective form of copyright. Instead of swearing, maybe you should Google it, or see wikt:copyrightable. Copyright only covers creating works. Non-creative works can not be copyrighted. I'm no lawyer, so don't take my word for it, plenty of links out there. Widefox; talk 04:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very long standing title per Ivanvector and {{R from move}}, and we really cannot expect people to know the difference between a disambiguation and a set index (they are only different to get around overly prescriptive rules for disambiguation pages) or which we have for any given title. People do search for "Title (disambiguation)" if they are looking for something they suspect is not the primary topic for a term but don't know what title we've given it to disambiguate it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(to add to above) Totally agree about SIAs in general (which is why I converted it), but still SIAs aren't dabs, and I don't know any (disambiguation) that targets one. In this case the dab was bad - it only had WP:PTM / SIA type content / redlink so better for readers to preserve content that delete outright. The primary topic Västra Frölunda IF has a new hatnote to List of Västra Frölunda IF sections. Suppose this is similar to WP:RELATED. Anyhow, you guys know more about the need to preserve legacy, but I'll put a note in the dab project for more opinions. Widefox; talk 14:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf. The only result of deleting DABs that target SIAs is hurting readers who are aware that their search term is ambiguous, know that ubiquitous (disambiguation) tag is used, but don't know the difference between a DAB and an SIA (i.e. the overwhelming majority of readers). Despite SIAs not being DABs under Wikipedia guidelines, functionally they do disambiguate between articles for ambiguous search terms, which is what the target does.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Thryduulf argument a fallacy - if this is a useful attribute, it should be made explicit for SIAs, but we have more than the absence of that in guideline ... we have explicitly the opposite WP:SETNOTDAB WP:NOTDAB MOS:DABNOTINDEX Set index articles are not disambiguation pages ! lists and dabs are to be treated totally differently, despite how seductively similar SIAs and dabs are. It is 100% not an argument not based on guideline, it goes against the spirit of WP:ASTONISH, and explicitly against dab guidance. I repeat my offer - I will nominate any such "orphans" I am aware of. None have yet been preserved, so I take this as best practice, but of course, consensus should decide this case. Widefox; talk 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about linking a list article to this title, but about preseving the redirect as a search term for a page that has the same functionality as a disambigution page - people searching for this title and arriving at a SIA will find exactly what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in policy or guideline that deals with if (disambiguation) redirects should be kept. If there's somewhere that explicitly says these redirects should not be kept, please link me. Yes DABs and SIAs are different, but we can't expect readers or even most casual readers to know the difference, hence the redirect. It's WP:CHEAP and deletion would be harmful to those who are familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that (disambiguation) is used for pages disambiguate similarly named topics, but do not know about SIAs, which only came about as a reified thing in 2014 (see: Wikipedia:History_of_SIAs). ASTONISH wouldn't apply here, because anyone using the term "Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation)" would be expecting a page that disambiguates between different sporting teams that use or have used the Vastra Frolunda IF name...which is exactly what the list is. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there's nothing explicit about "(disambiguation)", apart from this argument is based upon the familiarity of users seeing "(disambiguation)" and expecting disambiguation. Right. Problem is, SIAs are explicitly not disambiguation. Hence retaining this supposedly very useful feature is against the bold explicit text above, and WP:ASTONISH (for admittedly good reasons, I just don't think the reason is good myself). An inconsistent user interface is just that. That is the fallacy. I'd be willing to get this crept into guideline if needed, but certainly this is the first time in years this has been challenged, so I'm confident this is an outlier, and normal editing will resume by me correctly using suppress next time to avoid this. Widefox; talk 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIAs are not DABs, but they do disambiguate (in the layman's usage of the term). Functionally (i.e. getting readers from ambiguous terms to precise articles), they do the same thing, even if the formatting guidelines for the two are different. Before 2014, they generally were (functionally 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)) the same thing. The "(disambiguation)" parenthetical is so common on Wikipedia, and has been for years, so it's reasonable that some people would be using these as search terms. What is the point of deleting the redirect? Following some guideline for the sake of following it? As I explained in my previous post in this thread, ASTONISH isn't a valid reason to delete the redirect, and should actually be used to support it. The most likely reason why it's the first time in years this has been challenged, is that SIAs as a distinct type of page has only been around for three, and exceedingly few editors work on the nuances of SIAs/DABs. Just because something is currently the norm, doesn't mean that it should be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fundamental problem with that: 1. you're wrong that SIAs are three years old (or they were like dabs three years ago). 2. you're talking at one of those specialists as if I'm not a specialist (when I've made it clear this is normal practice). For 1. the facts are clear - 10 years ago they weren't that different from now [10]. For 2. see my CSD log, and deleted log in general. I'm sure other editors have more experience than me, but so far, nothing above convinces me that I'd be wrong to avoid such debates by using suppress next time per my WP:CLUE. What's the age of SIAs got to do with anything anyhow? This argument about the age of SIAs seems bizarre to me. That's ages to embrace that they are not dab pages (emphasis per guideline). I'm finding your argument based less on facts, established long-term practice, and spirit of guidelines than mine. I am still curious why you think using a redirect that's reserved for dab pages to target a list is: a) good for this but not for all SIAs - why the exception? b) not ASTONISHing when all others target dabs? Have you seen the articles, this isn't a big deal, so why the exception? As for following guidelines, both you are I have enhanced permissions, so I do expect us both clue-up, uphold, and to follow guidelines per that, yes, or change guidelines, else what's the future like? A bonus would be for anyone to weigh by WP:CLUE, so the clear message from specialists like User:Bkonrad and maybe myself and any other dab project folk is something more than WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, isn't it, something more than dismissively following rules? I understand you consider it useful, but is it worth striking your inaccuracy and reconsider at this point? Widefox; talk 00:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. SIAs were only moved out from the main WP:DAB to its own page in June 2014, [11], after a discussion between three editors. [12]. Even in this discussion, one of the participants notes that [He] tend[s] to know SIAs as disambiguating articles A later discussion at Template talk:SIA, [13] indicates that most SIAs are functionally just DAB pages that don't have to follow the strict rules of WP:MOS:DAB. This has always been true: take away things like extra links, images, tables, and SIAs become DABs.

2. That's the exact opposite of what I'm doing. My point is that your experience with DABs, SIAs, and the like means that what's normal and common sense for you is far from readily apparent to almost all editors and/or readers, most have whom have no idea what the difference is. Even if some of the oldest SIAs have existed for a decade, almost nobody is familiar with them. They're not named with a (set index) parenthetical unlike disambiguation pages, and until 2014, it looks like significantly less of them existed. Expecting people to search as if they were experienced with the intricacies of what is a DAB, an SIA, etc. is unrealistic when even many veteran editors don't know the difference. I understand that this is how things have always worked out for you, but just because something is currently the norm, doesn't mean that it should be. In fact, there was a recent RfD, where no consensus resulted in keeping a similar redirect with (disambiguation) in the page name. [14] (Which might mean an RFC to sort things out is in order!)

In response to your questions, A: I would actually support having/creating similar redirects for all SIAs. I've limited my any specific arguments to this redirect because it's at RfD, but the salient points would also apply to these redirects in general. B: Maybe 100 people know the difference between a DAB and an SIA, and anyone searching "X (disambiguation)" won't care if instead of a bulleted DAB page where entries are pages named X, they get a SIA list page which lists articles named X, with minor formatting differences. I've amended my bold statement above about DABs and SIAs being the same to add the nuance that this was meant in terms of functionality. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patar knight, with respect, you're digging yourself deeper. Stop. Please. I beg you. Check my link I gave you above. Strike this nonsense about SIAs being only 3 years old. I know you're getting your 3 year date from the split out from the dab guideline at WP:SIA, plus being informed from the SIA history page link you've given - that's not something I'd base anything on (never seen it before, but it has two edits, so is a backwater). I linked to the guideline timeshot, that will not misinform you. Please read that and strike. OK? It's the state of SIA 10 years ago. Widefox; talk 04:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, such redirects are (and should be) deleted routinely. The only reason for the existence of such redirects is to mark intentional redirects to a disambiguation page. Where the target of the redirect is not a disambiguation page, there is no purpose for such a redirect. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the only purpose though - they are also used by people looking for articles they don't know the name of but know will be listed at whatever page is at this title. The content was at this title for many years until very recently, which makes such use more likely. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is all predicated on lists aren't dabs. It hangs on your word "know will be listed". Dabs don't list, they just aid navigation. If they ain't aiding navigation, they aint doing the only thing they do. A redirect to a dab is a navigation step to the dab ie. another navigation step to the destination. A list may be a destination in itself (which is why they are allowed some content, and must justify it with refs, which are never allowed on dabs). SIAs aren't a bit dabby, say 1% dab 99% list, they're just lists. Once the 100% ness is embraced, and all vestiges of dabness are thrown off....A redirect misinforming users that's it's targeting a list is totally unacceptable. It's not 1% right, as SIAs aren't 1% dabby. It's just not right.
    - I don't think you understand what we're saying. Someone searching for "title (disambigution)" is looking for a page with links to articles that could reasonably be called "title". They don't care whether the page with those links on is a disambiguation page, a set index page, or a list. They are not being misinformed, they are finding the exact page they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I do... but that use case may be a conflation of two distinct use cases: 1. non-experienced users will not input " (disambiguation)" - a bedrock of disambiguation is that we assume they navigate via the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT) and land on the dab second. 2. any advanced user knowing " (disambiguation)" leads to dab pages will be disappointed as is doesn't. That doesn't convince me as useful, so 1. bad 2. bad. That only leaves incoming external links which is how much of an issue for dab pages? It falls back to use case 1. via the PT (inelegantly, I agree). Widefox; talk 15:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure where "legacy" links come in. How many titles with " (disambiguation)" actually get linked to by external sites? Per WP:INTDABLINK, these redirects are created to be used internally within Wikipedia so that deliberate links can be made to dab pages without showing up as an error needing to be corrected.

SIAs, lists, and name articles all look like dab pages, but they can all be linked to freely, unlike disambiguation pages. Once there is no dab page involved, any title with "disambiguation" is useless as a link or as a search term; it should be deleted as uncontroversial housekeeping. — Gorthian (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dabs not at the basename (have a parenthesis) would be odd to link to, and I don't buy the argument that they're useful to redirect to a list article, as they break WP:ASTONISH for both readers and editors, and go against the fundamentals of dabs and SIAs are not to be treated as the same per guideline. Widefox; talk 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nice theory, but as explained above it isn't correct - such links are not useless as search terms but fulfil a useful function. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I've just covered this fallacy above). This is using ASTONISH to aid users. Don't think this is a good basis for guideline and I've never seen it before, so not common practice either. I think the bold explicit guidelines are clear about the separation between SIAs and dabs. We have to start taking that as read in this. In which case it follows naturally, and by all the years of dab to SIAs I've done...I'll state it "(disambiguation)" shouldn't link to SIAs. If there's any examples of it, please show me and I'm nom them. One has to ask oneself, why should this one be any different? The argument logically leads to all SIAs having a useful (disambiguation) redirect to them. That's ad absurdum, but illustrates the bar to convince against standard practice. Widefox; talk 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, no one is going to be astonished when searching/linking a term with the (disambiguation) parenthetical to find a SIA, but would rather be grateful for getting what they were seeking to find using that search term. If these redirects are useful, which I and others have argued for in this RfD, it would make sense to get a bot to create them. Barring anyone stepping up and making that bot and getting it approved, we'll have to settle for arguing to keep existing redirects of this type created from page moves and whatnot. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every page with "disambiguation" in the title has a matching title without that cumbersome word. That is why these links are not useful for searches. The title Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) exists only because Västra Frölunda IF exists. I doubt very highly that anyone other than dab editors are typing the extra word "disambiguation" into searches, or even pasting it. When you search for "Västra Frölunda IF", you land on a page with a convenient link right at the top to List of Västra Frölunda IF sections, in case you want something other than that article. — Gorthian (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also (at least in the Vector skin) a redirect with "(disambiguation)" will not even appear in the list of choices until you type the entire title including all of "(disambiguation)" -- i.e., the redirect does not even appear when you type "Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation" -- it only appears when you complete the final parens. This seems decidedly UNuseful for roughly 99.99% of users. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be the case with any other disambiguation page, where just typing "(d" instantly brings up the DAB page, even in cases where the target page is a redirect to a page without (disambiguation) in the title (e.g. Treaty of Paris (disambiguation). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think it may be the "ä" that affects this. When I type "Vastra Frölunda IF", "Vastra Frolunda IF (disambiguation)" appears in the list. Strangely, the "ö" doesn't seem to affect the results. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is assuming that no one knows that (disambiguation) parentheticals are used on Wikipedia for DAB pages, and would specifically want to find a page that differentiates similar articles. For example, if someone knows that there are many Treaties of Paris, but wants to find a page with all of them on it, it's reasonable for them to search for "Treaty of Paris (disambiguation)". It does a disservice to our readers that someone performing such a search should be directed to search results and then forced to click through to the most relevant page, and then click a third time to get to a SIA. Ironically above, there's an argument that readers are so familiar with the differences between DABs and SIAs that they would be astonished to find themselves at a SIA when using "(disambiguation)" in a search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A set index is not a disambiguation page. There is enough confusion between these without adding to the confusion by having redirects incorrectly pointing to pages that are not disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a backwater The pageviews are clear [15] the dab got an average of 1 view per day (and that's including this blip, and December blip which was more navelgazing), the only real traffic here is Frölunda HC at 100/day. Nobody in their right mind would use the dab for that title, and they don't. This is just navelgazing. Widefox; talk 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page views make an even more compelling case to keep this. Even discounting all traffic after the initial RfD on a redirect to the current target, [16], it got just under 200 hits over a period of 18 months. It's possible that readers searched for a DAB page ab initio, or came from external links. In any case keeping such a redirect is WP:CHEAP, and required maintenance is already done by bots.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Nom changed to retarget Frölunda (disambiguation)#Sport as WP:INCOMPDAB After much deeper looking at the mess that's gone on around Frölunda (disambiguation), I've cleaned the dab, broadened the scope of the dab, contested and moved the dab back so it restores the primary topic. Now that's all done, it's clear an INCOMPDAB fits nicely. Bonus is we can use the list in the sport article too. All ready to go, so I will boldly do that now as it doesn't affect this debate. Widefox; talk 03:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would support this option, which should make all sides happy. Perhaps an RFC should be opened on the fate of (disambigution) requests, given this RFD and the prior RFD on a redirect of this type? [[17]]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Patar knight the only good thing coming out of this, is that it annoyed me enough to go check why this was in such a mess, fix sed mess (several fixed messes later), and come back only to find impractical debate here. It's all moot as I've fixed it all, which is quicker for me to do rather than to explain how to fix arrangement of titles, dabs, redirects, primary topics and why putting so much effort in to conserve a legacy redirect is absolutely futile - it's a redirect wagging the navigation dog. To fix such underlying dab issues, I had to learn some Swedish ("Västra" is "West", which affects the dab scope) move more, etc etc and eventually right at the end come to the conclusion INCOMPDAB is best. It is pure coincidence that it preserves the redirect, in fact, it doesn't preserve the move redirect as it's retargeted. (I'll comment above too, although now it's all moot I should refrain). It's WP:NOTBURO. It's already Done Widefox; talk 04:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 10#Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 06:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of discussion - I have brought up the issue of redirect suppression at WP:AN. Editors participating in this thread may be interested in that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant section at AN is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, support withdrawal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update
The WP:INCOMPDAB is being challenged:

(from User talk:Only in death ...) [18] Did you see my edit summary - it's WP:INCOMPDAB. Please self revert and discuss at RfD. Widefox; talk 15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. We dont link to redirects when directing readers to other articles or disambiguation pages. There are three choices. The primary topic (the football team) or the handball or hockey teams. Regardless of the existance of redirects, disambiguation/lists etc, either the hat at the football team should link directly (and only) to the disambiguation or 'list' page, or given there are only three, to the other two sports teams. Linking to a redirect which is targeted at a section of a disambiguation page is possibly the silliest option I have seen in awhile. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it still gives, as I've setup an WP:INCOMPDAB (but it's not a WP:DOUBLEDAB). It's because it's got a primary topic so it won't work like Aurora (album) but still satisfies the wording of WP:INCOMPDAB "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect". We link to redirects all the time though e.g. "xxx (disambiguation)", not sure I've seen this attempt before though. (I'll move this discussion to the RfD now). Widefox; talk 16:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCOMPDAB seemed a good fit with so few items, and as the sport items have names inside the broader scope of the dab Frölunda (disambiguation) but here's alternatives:
- 1. Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) -> Frölunda (disambiguation)#Sport (considering Västra Frölunda (disambiguation)#Sport and titles) as WP:INCOMPDAB - it's far from the example of Aurora (album) due to the primary topic
- 2. Västra Frölunda IF (sport) ditto -is that better?
- 3. Move Västra Frölunda IF into a football title, then create the club article WP:SUMMARY style same as Swedish [19] - but this can be done later by demand as unsure how notable it is

1. but as this has been removed as navigation from the primary topic by [20], [21]. Two hatnotes are OK, but then the dab isn't used, so may be deleted. Widefox; talk 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have proposed at WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" that the speedy deletion criteria for pages ending in "(disambguation)" be changed to reflect that not all such pages are uncontroversial. Please comment on this proposal there rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate faulkner

Kate faulkner → Kate Faulkner (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Firstly, I'm the creator of this redirect (CSD:G7). Secondly, it's the result of a page move because I moved an article with incorrect capitalisation to the correctly capitalised title (CSD:G6). Thirdly, and finally, typing "Kate faulkner" into the search box would take readers to "Kate Faulkner" even if this redirect didn't exist. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty standard capitalization redirect. Its useful if someone makes a typo elsewhere. Also, G7 doesn't apply to redirects from moves. Like I said when I originally declined the G6 "no reason not to have it." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the moment, all it does is create an extra step if someone types "kate faulkner" into the search box. That's a reason not to have it. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This RfD making someone click instead of the redirect operating as normal is not a reason to delete. If it is closed as keep, that won't be a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is, nothing will be lost if this redirect is deleted. A capitalisation typo in a search or within an article will still bring readers to Kate Faulkner. The bar has to be set higher than "there's no reason not to have it". Exemplo347 (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, redirects are cheap. I captitalize articles all the time without suppressing the redirect. It doesn't hurt anything, and it could possibly help if someone were to accidentally red link to it. We have plenty of redirects like this. See: Joseph stalin and Adolf hitler. R from capitalization is its own template. There's no need to delete this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact is, there's no need for it - If I mis-capitalise the name, Wiki doesn't give me red-links (e.g. kate Faulkner) so it's pointless. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff sessions is red though. The rule only works for the first letter when it comes to Wikilinks, and yes, this is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we tend to keep random capitalization, and I see no pressing reason to delete. I'm going to stop commenting so as not to dominate the conversation now, but did want to point out it isn't true for last names. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:R#KEEP#2. This could prevent a duplicate page from being created. Adam9007 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We routinely keep {{R from move}} redirects for attribution purposes and to avoid breaking links from outside Wikipedia (we have no way of telling where they are and no way of fixing them). Also the internal search engine is only one of many ways people search and browse Wikipedia and some of the other ways are case sensitive, so redirects like this help them find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:R3 - this page was created at the incorrect title within the last 24 hours and then the error was corrected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That addresses the liklihood of incoming links but completely ignores the other reasons redirects from alternative capitalisations are useful. I stand by my recommendation to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been through this before, and I thought all of the possible ways to find a page were case-insensitive so long as only one variant existed. For example you can find the article Alexandru Lungu by wikilinking alexandru lungu, by vising the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/alexandru_lungu, by typing "alexandru lungu" in the search box ... am I forgetting any methods? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those first two don't work! Well, maybe they shouldn't. There's no case for having a wikilink spelled that way, it's an error and if it's red then it's an automatic flag that it needs to be fixed. As for external linking, probably the same thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you've discovered there are multiple ways that a reader entering this title will not end up ay the article they are looking for. In some cases they will see search results, in others they will be invited to create and article and shown search results, in some they will be invited to either create an article or invited to search. In all of these cases there is at least one, sometimes three or more (depending on search results, which are not predictable or guaranteed) unnecessary clicks between them and the article. The redirect eliminates all these and discourages the creation of a duplicate article. If it's tagged as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} then the error is easily identifiable and a bot could fix any links. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: R3 doesn't apply to redirects from page moves. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: That was changed recently. R3 can apply if the moved page was also recently created, which is the case here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Didn't see that!

Thanks!. Adam9007 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was changed because of this exact case, where a page is created obviously in error and then immediately moved to the correct title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Ivanvector. There was no need for this full discussion when the Speedy shouldn't have been declined in the first place, but here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biological role of nitrogen

Biological role of nitrogen → Nitrogen#Biological role (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This targets the "Biological role" section of the main nitrogen article, but a section by that or any similar name doesn't currently exist. I'm not a subject-matter expert by any means but there is no section in the main article and no single article in Category:Nitrogen that appears to be about this broad topic. I'd rather target this somewhere useful than delete it, as it's a likely search term (80 hits last month, and c.f. Biological role of oxygen (a disambig) and Biological role of calcium a redirect to → Calcium in biology), but I'm not sure the Nitrogen article is a good target as that is about all aspects of the element not just it's role in biology. I will leave a note about this discussion for the Elements and Biology wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nitrogen cycle - an article which specifically addresses the role in biology that Nitrogen plays. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nitrogen cycle, this article has a good general discussion of the broad role of nitrogen in ecosystems and links to main articles on the biological roles of nitrogen. --Mark viking (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wealth of candidate articles this could be redirected to. Nitrogen cycle is perhaps the best, but nitrification, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen assimilation are also plausible. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This problem arose because a few months ago an editor deleted, without discussion, the section on the biological role in Nitrogen. The section needs rewriting and proper sourcing, but in my view it belongs in the article. Accordingly I have reinstated it, so the redirection under issue here now has a proper target. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must object to this, being the editor who deleted this section. In my opinion, this section does not just need a rewrite, it needs complete deletion, because it is completely absurd to talk about the biological role of nitrogen when just about every biological process involves its compounds in some way or another, but the element itself (which I think the nitrogen article should be primarily about) is largely not involved. (Indeed, pretty much all organisms need to either convert N₂ into more useful compounds, or rely on other organisms to do it for them and benefit from the products.) I salvaged the actually useful parts of the content into "Occurrence" (so reinstating this creates a silly redundancy). Essentially, that section is nothing more than a highly incomplete laundry list of how organisms use some examples of the huge class of N compounds (also highly incomplete), and if it were complete it would probably take up a whole thick book. Nitrogen cycle is a fair target, giving a brief overview of what N compounds are involved, so that the interested reader can read further on each of them. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I should have looked with more care. The section you added on "Occurrence" does indeed cover some biological aspects. This still leaves the other option, which is to redirect Biological role of nitrogen to Nitrogen#Occurrence. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very sensible as well. I don't really have a strong opinion as to which one is better, but I would be okay with either. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 *'''Weak delete''' I am seeing some usage in conservative news sources, but this isn't as widespread as [[Obamacare]], for example. - '''[[User:Champion|<big>C</big><small>HAMPION</small>]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:Champion#Top|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Champion|contributions]]) ([[Special:Logs/Champion|logs]]) </sup> 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Alternative keep''' - non-notable vague POV BLPVIO neologism. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:MADEUP]]. Does not appear to be in use. '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 21:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 ==== Acne ====