Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tavix (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 9 April 2024 (β†’β€ŽWikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy: sd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2024.

Email etiquettes

Page does not talk about etiquette. Only history was a user essay that was BLAR'd within a couple minutes. Readers who look up information about "email etiquettes" are likely looking for etiquette related topics, rather than email as a whole. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehlron Tay

Appears to be the name of a fictional character, not mentioned at the target article or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator of this redirect many, many years agoβ€”clear delete. It's effectively a G8 in spirit, albeit not letter. EdΒ [talk]Β [OMT] 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EEUU

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Non-English abbreviation for a language variation not mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frugality rules

There are numerous things that could be referred to as "frugality rules"; no reason why this is the primary topic. I propose deleting this in the absence of a clear primary topic. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pic (Star Wars character)

I'm not sure what this is referring to. Not mentioned at target, and no reasonable target exists. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Picaroon C Boodle is not a notable character, so delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Room101

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Room 101 is a torture chamber included in George Orwell's 1984.

Is ANI dismal at times? Yeah it can be. Is there drama that occurs? That it does. Is it the most torturous place on all of Wikipedia? Even if it was, that's not a universal truth. ANI is not a torture chamber that contorts victims and exposes them to their deepest nightmares. It can be bad at times but CERTAINLY not "whailling-from-the-ninth-circle-in-pain" bad. If a page called WP:Torture Chamber popped up as a redirect to ANI, it would get R3'd ASAP imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-ify and tag as Humorous as per this discussion. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Equating ANI with human torture is not humorous, but that's just me. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, but then again, I also don't find the idea of gorillas eating gerbils to be funny, so I just assume I don't get the joke. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely to be helpful/functional. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect is completely harmless. Wikipedia has a long tradition of funny redirects to internal pages, especially ANI. Some of them are WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES, WP:Great Dismal Swamp, WP:HAPPYPLACE, and WP:ALOTOFDRAMA. Aside from that, no actual argument has been made for why the redirect shouldn't exist or what policy/guideline it violates. It's a little piece of wiki-culture and history that isn't hurting anyone, and I find it useful. There's plenty of room for levity in internal project-space. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Torture chambers are not humorous, it is in no way accurate and, as WJBscribe once said, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Village stocks, an actual humour essay with a torture theme, or delete as second choice; do not keep. As a redirect to ANI it's pointless: it has no incoming links from discussions and likewise has no pageview activity. And as many have tried to argue in various ways over a number of years: it is actively harmful to compare one of Wikipedia's main dispute resolution forums with a work of psychological horror. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch channel

Move to either Watch (channel) or Watch (TV channel) without leaving an additional redirect. Okmrman (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(London)derry

Don't know what the point of putting London in parentheses does. It's either called Derry or Londonderry. No in-between. Okmrman (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one way that people use to acknowledge the dispute without expressing an opinion on which is correct. See as just two examples this academic paper subtitled "English in (London)Derry, Northern Ireland", this Medium piece. There are also multiple forum and Reddit posts that appear high on google results - searching is hard though as Google refuses to distinguish "(London)derry", "(London)Derry", "London-Derry", "London/Derry" (either as one place or as "London to Derry") and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, parentheses in this style indicates a variable presence in the topic's title, which can be included or removed without affecting the context. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Kk.urban (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy

WP:ANI has a good chunk of redirects, perhaps there's humor in this one being even more implausible than something like WP:Great Dismal Swamp, but casting the aspersions that "people in ANI are scum and villains" is probably not the type of humorful redirect we'd like to keep, as this title comes at the expense of the ANI individuals rather than the ANI environment. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - functionless redirect, offers no benefit. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While I vouched for the prior one and gave it the benefit of the doubt, this one is utterly pointless and not used for humor. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This one targets users and is just offensive. Meters (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it clearly wasn't intended maliciously it might be prone to being misinterpreted as such. It serves no necessary purpose so let's get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a harmless Star Wars reference, doesn't hurt anything and adds a bit of levity. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is not humorous, it is in no way accurate and, as WJBscribe once said, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Users for deletion

Not a useful redirect pointing at WP:ANI. Technically has an uppercase version that exists as an April Fools page, but this version existed a bit longer. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kannagi (upcoming film)

This film released just about 4 months ago and is no longer upcoming. Plenty of time has past to the point that there is no more confusion for a 2023 movie, as it's well into 2024 now. Nobody ending up here who sees "upcoming film" in the title would be surprised by it's removal for a movie releasing last year. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The beach that makes you old

Related meme not mentioned at target. Implausible to be searched on Wikipedia, not including people going onto Google and asking "what's the beach that makes you old", after which point one would find the source film for the topic; also, the Wikipedia page pops up there too. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey squat

This seems to refer to a specific type of bodyweight exercise, but neither Squatting position nor Squat (exercise) mention this. The few YouTube videos that I watched don't seem to have a consistent definition. –Sonicwave talk 17:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorority squat

As far as I could find, "sorority squat" seems to be a colloquial term referring to how members of sororities sometimes pose for group pictures, but neither the current target page (Squatting position) nor Fraternities_and_sororities#Sororities mention this. Therefore I think the redirect as it currently stands may cause more confusion than it's worth.

As an aside, pageview statistics indicate that this received more views in a period between 2016-2017 but dropped off since. –Sonicwave talk 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Pate

Not mentioned in targets. Seems to have been an announcer known for covering the Kennedy assassination (see e.g. Dallas news, though that gives a different radio station). Rusalkii (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logoic plane

The word "logoic" appears nowhere in the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monadic plane

The word "monadic" appears nowhere in the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Well it doesn't appear there now, as it was excised in February [1]. It was always there before. I am not entirely surprised it was removed, as all I could find, when I looked at this in 2022, to support it was some Theosophy sources, and that is all rather fringe. Thus I had WP:BLARed the page in August 2022 [2]. You will see on the talk page that the editor who created the page didn't really seem to have much understanding of the subject nor of Wikipedia policy, and had I not carried out the BLAR I would have taken this to AfD. But here's the tricky thing: the redirect has history. Deleting the redirect means deleting the Theosophy based unsourced article with dubious Greek in the history. If it went to AfD I would vote delete, but as a non RfD regular, I'll ask the question: is a vote to delete this article, along with its history, within the remit of RfD? SirfurboyπŸ„ (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phone computer

This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers. Okmrman (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is what a smartphone is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the terms were used before "smartphone" became the established term (I can't check as Google is refusing to show me results that are both verbatim and before a given time, and either one alone is overwhelmed by irrelevant results where the two words happen to be adjacent, especially in lists in adverts). Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this actually link to telco equipment? Such as a PBX or other phone computers -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrasing of these redirects makes me believe they could also refer to Modem, thus making these redirects ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with trailing.

  • Delete per WP:PANDORA there is no more reason to have redirects here than at London. (which I fixed 2 links for yesterday[3][4]), United States., Jupiter. or Donald Trump.. None of these have any useful history or were at the title for more than a day or so. Yes it may be argued due to me fixing links (which I might have done before) they are plausible but such an error doesn't seem a good reason to have them as we could otherwise end up creating numerous redirects for errors and the errors would also be slightly harder to notice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTYPO gives the example of Georgia (U.S. state that was previously kept but was more recently deleted, the same logic applies here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia. It's still a relatively common redirect.
Delete Municipalities of Mexico State. and Mexico State. since your argument still does extend to these two links. Okmrman (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what part of his arguments against Municipalities of Mexico State. or Mexico State. still hold that wouldn't also apply in equal measure to Wikipedia., and thus, wouldn't be roundly parried by the fact that Wikipedia. should be kept as per WP:RTYPO. If Wikipedia. should be kept, Mexico State. and Municipalities of Mexico State. should be kept, too. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probable deletion for Wikipedia. due to lack of WP:AFFINITY Okmrman (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Transport in Newcastle

First thing that is wrong is that the second and subsequent words should not be capitalized unless its a proper noun. But anyway, the thing is Newcastle often refers to the city in UK or the one in Australia so I am not sure if this could either serve as a redirect to Newcastle or a new dab page. In case of the latter, the article title needs to change to 'Public transport in Newcastle'. I am leaning towards creating a dab page btw. β€”Β Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniperChill (talk β€’ contribs) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Rosbif73 and Joseph2302. A7V2 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The disambiguation page would be inherently redundant and unmaintainable - anyone who sees Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this will probably search for either just "Newcastle" or Transport in the specific Newcastle they are referring to. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lich (Extinct World)

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BMO (Extinct World)

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ice King (Extinct World)

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Gunter (Extinct World). The Extinct World has very little differences from the main universe, except that all of the characters died at one point. This has little use in navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Airport

This is an inaccurate redirect. Paradise Airport is a small airfield in Paradise, California, nowhere near Paradise, Nevada (and nowhere near the size or importance of Las Vegas' international airport). Mistaken redirect that should just be deleted; the airport itself is non-notable so its article was converted to redirect in 2022. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potentially confusing, per WP:R#DELETE item 2. As well as the California "Paradise airport" indicated by the nom [5], there's another in New York state [6], but neither seem to be notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adult anime

Not all anime targeted towards adults is hentai. Also, hentai usually describes manga or drawings. Okmrman (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow the new retarget idea to be discussed. The page is clearly not staying as the status quo at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🌼

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

What is the best target for this redirect? As Bloom isn't an article, the redirect currently at time of listing leads to a disambiguation page listing meanings such as Bloom syndrome and Bloom (software) which aren't particularly relevant to the symbol. The official English description is Blossom. If we can't use that for some reason, I would suggest a compromise of Flower, but that already has a separate Unicode symbol (⚘ U+2698 FLOWER) redirecting there. Ping: TadejM. Certes (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 16#🌼 which I somehow overlooked earlier. We've already decided this as Blossom, and a bolder editor has just retargeted to there, so we can probably close this off unless there are objections. Certes (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as moot; redirect does not currently go to Bloom. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does; it's been changed again as we wrote. Certes (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Or not.
Okay so, can someone please protect the page while we hash this out?
In any case, my vote goes to Target to Blossom as per the linked previous discussion. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that editors who maintain disambiguation links are likely to keep reverting to the status quo ante of Blossom, if only once each, to fix the templates which use the redirect and clear the errors from the daily report. Certes (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The emoji is called blossom but it is further commented that it is a daisy blossom.[7] Taking the user to a page describing a different concept (the flowers of stone fruit trees (genus Prunus) and of some other plants with a similar appearance) is therefore misleading. I get further information from Codepoints that the CLDR project assigns these additional labels, e.g. for search in emoji pickers: flower. I was not aware of the 2019 discussion but feel that this requires revisiting in the light of the said information. For this reason, I support redirecting this emoji to bloom or to flower. --TadejM my talk 10:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual official standard describes code point 1F33C as "BLOSSOM = daisy" (their emphasis). This seems confusing, as daisy flowers are not blossoms. The appearance of the symbol is not mandated and varies between implementations. Certes (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blossom is a synonym of flower. The code point specifically represents daisy, but it may be used more broadly as a depiction of a flower. --TadejM my talk 13:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why it is necessary to edit war and when called out over edit warring, being accused of bad faith editing.
But you have the Official Unicode Consortium code chart saying the character represents blossom. And you have the 2019 RfD-discussion] where the community consensus was to keep the character redirecting to blossom. I have seen no arguments to doubt Unicode.org nor the redirect discussion. TheΒ BannerΒ talk 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only person edit warring and acting in bad faith here is you. --TadejM my talk 13:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of the symbol is not mandated and varies between implementations is important. For example on the same system (Xubuntu Linux) I see very different representations in the different browsers I have available - see screenshots (I can't work out the license for the Firefox or Konqueror emoji to upload them locally). In summary the Chromium is ; Firefox is a flower with a yellow centre, four very widely spaced white petals at the 1, 4, 7 and 10 O'Clock positions, a short green stem growing out of green grass; Knoqueror's emoji is black and white showing a small circle in the centre surrounded by 7 petals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This means that it cannot be limited solely to the flowers of stone fruit trees (genus Prunus) and of some other plants with a similar appearance. --TadejM my talk 13:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, linking to a disambiguation page is not a good idea. TheΒ BannerΒ talk 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the first constructive comment. I agree. Linking to Flower is better. ---TadejM my talk 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a method of expanding this argument out: Here is a link to Emojipedia's article on the emoji in question; the site documents the emoji's varied appearance on plenty of different sites, applications, and operating systems. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And never mentioned bloom or blooming... TheΒ BannerΒ talk 20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Flower per Plantdrew in the previous discussion and because blossom is a bolded aka therein. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulah, California

Originally this was a stub article that was PRODded by me; another user removed the PROD and converted the article to a redirect. The problem is, the target does not mention Dulah at all, and (per the original stub) Dulah was nothing more than a rail siding located near Solimar. I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone would search for a rail siding, and even if they did, they won't find any information about it here. The article should have been simply deleted and so should this redirect. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page was partially merged. I've made an attribution notice in an edit summary at the target to avoid attribution issues in case the page does get deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I redirected the page because I merged content to Solimar Beach and redirects are cheap. The only other reason to keep the redirect is that if you search for the Solimar Beach community in GNIS, the only entry that comes up is Dulah; that's the only reason I started an article under Dulah in the first place, since Solimar Beach is used on local signage and I started the article way back when I assumed GNIS was reliable. TheCatalyst31 Reactionβ€’Creation 04:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak restore article (per WP:PROD, can be taken to AfD if desired), but could this name not be added to the current target? As things stand this is confusing for someone searching this. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay πŸ’¬ 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Aurora

Not discussed at target with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (feral child and etc.

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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

Delete all. When typing in to the search bar, the search result will be autocompleted with the missing parentheses. As for websites that cannot handle parentheses, that is, as has been established quite clearly over the last few months, their problem, and not Wikipedia's-- they need to fix their formatting handling. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Note that I !voted delete on the last batch you nominated. This batch I'm !voting keep for the simple reason that they are demonstrably useful to someone... in that these redirects are all getting use (noting again that this is unlike the last batch). They're WP:CHEAP, they're useful, they're harmless. Note that I expressly do NOT support the creation of more of these things, for all the reasons cited by nom, but I don't think we should deliberately go out of our way to break someone's workflow just because it makes our database tidier. If, at some point in the future, these stop getting regular use for an extended period of time, I'd be happy to see them gone. But for now, they get use, they're unambiguous, they should stay. (No offense to nom, by the way, I appreciate getting community input on where the limits are / should be) Fieari (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari. Deletion would inconvenience readers without brining any benefits to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One parenthesis missing does not justify these redirects when the search function automatically fills in the desired results for anyone searching for them. These are just pointless redirects. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Fieari and Thryduulf, and the previous discussions. Genie (feral child has gone down in use since the prior discussions except that it got over 6,500 hits on March 29, more than some articles get in a year. It's clearly still useful; Wikipedia's mission is to provide information to its readers, not to break things and hope that an external website notices (they won't). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:UNNATURAL typos. The search box fills in the parentheses for you, I doubt anyone is going to type an opening parenthesis, forget to close it, and then hit enter without selecting the correct option from search. As for other websites, that's their problem. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Island, Newfoundland and Labrador

Delete as not clear why this redirects here, nothing about it in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the person who created this redirect has since been blocked for misusing multiple accounts. PatGallacher (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Google shows that the island exists, and is a part of or at least is directly adjacent to Greenspond (hence someone making this redirect). Looks like a harmless redirect to me, lack of information in the article notwithstanding. I don't feel strongly about this though. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. It's a named geographical feature as well as a census subdivision, or at least it was as recently as 1911. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_9&oldid=1218126165"