Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 27

October 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 27, 2024.

Tata (Persian King)

Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysolith

Chrysolith → Peridot (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 19 September 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, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf's analysis. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf, perhaps an actual mention on the Peridot page is warranted to prevent any cases of WP:RASTONISH. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chrysolite since it seems to be just as ambiguous as that term, for which it seems to be an alternative or foreign variant. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page Chrysolite, per Felix QW. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Both with and without the "e" (and with a "us") in many European languages the terms have have over the last 100 years or so become more specific. But our enquirer may not have found the term in a modern work. Of interest there is nomenclature for the subspecies, chrysolite de Saxe being topaz, chrysolit[h]e du cap being phrenite. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Retarget, no mention of "lith" at the target page so "lite" captures all desired usages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Geez, a 4th relist, but wow ... the direction of the discussion seemed to change substantially after the most recent relist, so it's worth giving this another go to see if consensus gets clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy → Leningrad Cowboys (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy → Leningrad Cowboys (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think this "faux Cyrillic redirect" is useless. Even if the faux Cyrillic letters appear in the band's official logo, that's all they are, faux. No serious publication uses this form to refer to the band's name. There are no incoming links from any articles. This also caused a bot to create another redirect "LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy" because the bot thought the faux Cyrillic letters were real. That redirect is even more useless. Delete both. JIP | Talk 22:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first as a valid stylization of the band's name. It doesn't matter whether a "serious publication" would use it. The band uses it, which makes it prima facie a plausible search term. Delete second as one of many, many incorrect redirects created by Eubot longer ago than some editors have been alive. Eubot is no longer active, nor would such a context-sensitive bot task be approved today. I actually think admins may have used {{db-error}} on Eubot errors in the past? But I could be misremembering. Tavix would know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first concurrence with Tamzin in toto. Additionally, the insinuation that an improper use of Cyrillic lettering is sufficient reason to delete a redirect would mean that various existing redirects would need to be removed, including: TETЯIS, KoЯn and LIИKIИ PARK, not to mention the redirects for things like Ωmega Mart and GRΣΣK, which while not faux Cyrillic, are certainly faux Greek. Considering the fact that numerous official sources have used these stylings, the argument that no serious publication uses it, even if it wasn't irrelevant, is prima facielly false. Further, the use of faux Cyrillic is so widespread that the same serious publications insinuated above to not use such forms have changed their own stylization, such as what was done to various news organizations covering the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Beyond ALL of that, the fact that there are so many examples where this has been implemented, that while there is no official policy within the Style Manual for it, I'd say we've reached WP:CON, meaning that the redirect is actually defacto policy. Delete Second because that one is useless, and as previously mentioned, was created by a bot that appears to no longer even be active, in which case by all means it should be purged. BUT, the bot didn't think the Cyrillic letters are real, because A) they are real, and B) if the bot "thought" that, it would have interpreted them appropriately, what happened is the bot misinterpreted the Cyrillic as Latin characters, resulting in the horrendous redirect. That being said, the bot's mistaken translation of Cyrillic characters as Latin ones does not make the cyrillic redirect somehow fruit of the poison tree, and the argument that the misinterpretation of a bot is cause to change more than a decades of consensus is, void ex facie as it is, quite simply, ridiculous. If your doctor mistakes your chicken pox for the common cold, you blame the doctor not the chicken pox. Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st, Delete 2nd - per above. Note that catching internal links is not the primary purpose of redirects, and zero internal links is not a valid deletion reason. Redirects are primarily a search aide, first and foremost. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy per above as a valid stylization of the band's name. Even if this redirect's title isn't plural and/or used by "serious publications," people might still search for the band using the name the way it's written on their logo. Delete LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy per above as an implausible Eubot redirect that should've been booted from the site years earlier. Regards, SONIC 678 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st, Delete 2nd per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios

Universal Studios → Universal Studios, Inc. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electing for disambiguation per nominator's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Universal Pictures (second choice is disambiguation) – At the very least, we have a rough consensus here against Universal Studios, Inc. as the primary topic, with some in that discussion leaning toward Universal Pictures instead. Universal Pictures was originally titled Universal Studios for more than a decade until an undiscussed technical move occurred (never got the discussion it deserved). Then recently in May, the redirect was changed to point to the parent company article instead of Universal Pictures (again, no discussion until this month).

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.

BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.

Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.

"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.

"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.

In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.

14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.

"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.

There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.

Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.

Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.

"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.

You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.

"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.

That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...

Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.

The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).

2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.

So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.

As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.

Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.

We are left with three options:

Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).

Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.

It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try

(by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Universal Pictures as the primary topic and {{r from former name}}. The individual theme parks (Universal Studios Hollywood etc.) are partial title matches, so none of them would be reasonable redirect targets. The broader Universal Destinations & Experiences isn't referred to as "Universal Studios", and per GoneIn60's analysis above, people who search for "Universal Studios" alone aren't usually looking for it.
I don't see the need for Universal Studios (disambiguation) if it'll only list two other articles. Why not just a hatnote? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the individual theme parks are partial title matches means they are equally plausible candidates for the primary topic as the film studio, which is a zero-title match. A disambiguation page would include Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, Inc., Universal Destinations & Experiences, Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, Universal Studios Beijing, and Universal Studios Lot. See how it's difficult to prove that the film studio (which, again, does not even include the word "Studios" in its name) is more primary than any of these other candidates? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. If anything, I would believe this redirect is the WP:COMMONNAME for the theme parks, but per the above conversation, seems I may possibly be incorrect in that stance. Either way, I oppose "retarget to Universal Pictures" as there's more than one potential subject to claim the nominated redirect as a common name, and the winner of that trophy is certainly not the film production company. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay 79

Barangay 79 → Caloocan#Barangays (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are at least 3 Barangay 79s, and this one in Caloocan is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Barangay 79s are notable, the one in Caloocan was redirected via AFD this week , and none are plausible search items. No one's looking for Barangay 79s. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:@Sir MemeGod

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as the redirect was clearly created in error. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:@Sir MemeGod → User:Sir MemeGod (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unneccesary redirect, I think they meant to use a ping template. Sir MemeGod  20:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I tried to use the “no ping” template. 🍋 🍋(talk!) 20:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this won't come off as sarcastic but Is there not a speedy deletion category that covers something like this? Esolo5002 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is, G7 applies. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:18, 28 October 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).

"Degrassi characters" redirects

Charcters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Characters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Characters of Degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of Degrassi characters → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Back in 2021, the target page was moved from the last redirect's title to List of Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High characters (which is worth keeping at the current target since it's accurate and describes exactly what is promised by its title) to avoid confusion with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi: Next Class characters, but apparently these redirects have stayed at the target for all these months since this move happened. I'm not 100% sure if the current target is the best place to take readers searching any of these terms; but I'm torn between keeping, disambiguating, and deleting; since the target article is the longstanding page of each redirect. I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss the best course of action, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Regards, SONIC 678 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig they are all plausible but ambiguous search terms with no obvious primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig between the locations of all the character lists, for Kids of Degrassi Street, Jr.High, High, School's Out, NextGen, NextClass ... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Head

Inside Head → Inside Out (2015 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems to be fairly ambiguous: could also refer to something like Head and neck anatomy. Not mentioned at target Cremastra (u — c) 14:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's the English translation of インサイド・ヘッド, the movie's title in Japan. I haven't really formed my opinion about this yet, but that movie doesn't have a connection to Japanese, and like the nom says, it can refer to stuff like the proposed target. Regards, SONIC 678 16:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Weak Delete While the connection to the film is a little flimsy, a google search does not return anything meaningful for the exact term in the redirect. There are many other redirects out there that have minor usefulness, and we keep them. If a future editor wants to use this term for something else, he/she can replace the redirect with a disambiguation page, or just replace the page altogether. --rogerd (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After further consideration, I have decided that this may prevent a future more valid use for the term from being used, so I don't think there is any benefit to keep it. --rogerd (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Remove While all points above are valid, I don't see any good reason to keep the redirect in place. I see no great WP:CON on redirects to titles from other languages, especially ones where the translation language and target language aren't even remotely related (I could see an argument for languages that are both Latinic for example, or even Germanic and Latinic, where there exists substantial enough similarity to justify that someone might be looking for it). We don't even consistently redirect to former, WIP, or alternative titles of a work given by the works creator in the SAME language (The Psychedelic Soldier ≠ Apocalypse Now).Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

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. I see a consensus to Keep this redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar → Don't You Want Me (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of a "cocktail bar" at the target article. No mention of "waitress" at the target article. This is a seemingly unimportant lyric, and people who search for this instead of the natural "Don't You Want Me" title of the song, are likely looking for material directly related to their search term, which doesn't exist here. No verification exists for people who don't know whether they ended up at the right place. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see above re "natural" ways to search). This is the opening line to the song, which (along with the first line of the chorus) is almost always going to be a plausible search term for those who don't remember the title of the song. In this case the lyric is unambiguous and there is no deep meaning to it that cannot be gleaned from reading the article's section about the song as a whole, so people using this search term are finding what they want to find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is precedent of redirecting the entire first line of books, or movies, or songs, or any creative work, to the work in question (on the premise of being the first line alone). It might randomly happen, but inappropriately so without something particular being true in that case. When it does happen, there's usually more to it, and/or its a special case with special coverage. The precedent arises if the line in question is particularly noteworthy enough to garner sourced content. Perhaps it's been reused multiple times in subsequent works, or an "iconic quote" that people would want to read about? That does not seem to be the situation here.

In any case, I am challenging this material in mainspace. This material has to be quoted from SOMEwhere, but where? Readers are left with no context, or any evidence that this line is even correct, much less related in any way to the song (i.e. blind trust in redirect correctness with no source, and we've seen that redirects can't always be trusted at face-value for their inate factual accuracy). If this line was mentioned somewhere at the target article, that would alleviate all concerns. But I don't think this particular line in this particular song is relevant enough for even that. If there is evidence that "Don't You Want Me" has some connection to the first line of the song, moreso than any song with lyrics also has a "first line", then that could be worth including maybe, but that's for the RfD to uncover. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Redirects from opening lines? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are only valid redirects if the opening line can be verified at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this considered to be a reliable source? If so, we can add this first line to the article, with this as the ref. --rogerd (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1st lines of SONGS, as opposed to other artistic works, are frequently used as the titles and it is very plausible for someone to know the 1st line of a song but not the actual title (see: Tubthumping, granted that's a case where so few people know the title vs the lyrics that it merited discussion in the article, but it still illustrates the general point that this happens). I disagree that it would be WP:ASTONISHing for a user to find the article on the song when typing the lyric, even without a discussion of the specific lyric in question. This is a helpful search aid, not a statement that we are talking about the lyrics specifically. We are not a lyric database, but we can help point people to the article they were likely intending to find in the way that many people search for songs. Fieari (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, "I get knocked down" IS mentioned, WITH a source, at Tubthumping! EZPZ! And is in the album cover too no less, woah! Therefore I get knocked down is substantiated, and I had zero intention of seeing it deleted. It's likely, and demonstrably so, with article content at the target page. Good song btw. ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfectly plausible search term. The opening line is iconic, enough that memes have been made about it (and the meme covered in media such as The Independent and Vice). You say users are likely looking for material directly related to their search term - exactly what else could they be looking for with this search term? the wub "?!" 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What could readers be looking for with this search term?" Their search term. I.e., exactly the phrase: "You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar". Which is not present at the target, despite the existence of a redirect implying that the search term is covered at the target, thereby being misleading.

If the meme is so iconic, it should be included and verified in the article to substantiate a redirect, but nobody has suggested this course of action. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, per the above. The term is well-associated with the song, and it is easily conceivable that a person looking for the song would remember this line in particular. BD2412 T 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I were looking for a song where I knew a well known line and not the title, I would probably start in Google, but I think this is useful. I am old enough to remember when this song came out. (I want my MTV) --rogerd (talk) 18:08, 27 October 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).

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go → Yankee Doodle (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Despite being implausible, unlikely as a search term, and wholly unmentioned not at the target article, but also unmentioned across all of Wikipedia, the redirect is also incorrect. It should be "heigh ho", not "heigh o". This exact spelling becomes near impossibly unlikely in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that all this time we're simply targeting "Yankee Doodle". People looking for the correctly spelled lyric, will not find it here either. No mention of "hunting" at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized: these lyrics aren't even for Yankee Doodle! A-Hunting We Will Go has existed since 2010 so I have ZERO clue how this could have possibly happened, besides expectable carelessness from the mass-redirect creations of unmentioned & unverified lyrics, filled with typos and implausible formatting.

For this page, A-Hunting We Will Go does currently contain lyrics in the article, and the lyrics indeed say "heigh ho". But these are also unsourced and should be removed from the article as well, per WP:NOTLYRICS and not being encyclopedic content. Lyrics can be included on Wikiquote or Lyricfinder if desired, or wherever the appropriate place to put such lyrics, on any site that isn't Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a lyric database). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go anyways, despite the impending removal of lyrics; the title of the song IS present in the redirect, and it would definitely be going to the right place if retargeted.

In other news, this was APPARENTLY created from scratch in August of this year by user:Kjell Knudde; however the history indicates that Kjell was merely adding categories to an existing redirect?? I've got no clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go. Cremastra (u — c) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go per above. If someone searches these lyrics and ends up at the page for a song that doesn't contain them, chances are they might be WP:ASTONISHed at this. It's preferable to lead them to a song that actually contains them to prevent this from happening. Regards, SONIC 678 16:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The lyrics have been removed from the article, because Wikipedia is not a lyric database, furthermore the whole section was unsourced. Also keeping in mind that these are not actually the true lyrics of the song. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it should be delete nor a specific retarget into A-Hunting We Will Go. There is no match within it's lyrics. Thus, it is include for WP:COSTLY applied. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Icarus58 But, someone typing in these lyrics will still get given the song to which they belong to. Given that the title is the first line, it should be clear why they're being redirected. I do not see how WP:COSTLY applies. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I noted for that — sorry. Please see if this is match with a source: [1] ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting: It's not a match, because the song goes "heigh ho", and not "heigh-o" as the redirect uses it. And without a sourced mention at the article, this material, (even if it is "correct" or "incorrect") cannot be reliably verified. And this one is incorrect, so it certainly can't be verified. It is WP:COSTLY because we cannot and should not be expected to maintain unverified lyrics, ESPECIALLY so when they contain obscure errors, as Wikipedia redirects, WP:UNNATURAL. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping → Pump Up the Jam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Someone who is typing this full phrase is almost certainly familiar with the name of the song being "pump up the jam" at a 99% confidence. At 0.1% confidence would anyone expect this song to be TITLED "Pump up the jam pump it up while your feet are stumping". And articles are titled based on their titles. Searching for the whole phrase implies that certain material related to redirect that implies we contain information related to this clearly lyrical search term, when we do not. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the true lyric ends with "stomping", not "stumping". jlwoodwa (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that stumpin' is how it's pronounced in the actual song-- or at least it sounds that way to my own ears. That said, it not being the correct lyric does considerably weaken my own Keep vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exceedingly implausible and useless, especially given that the actual song name is contained as the first part of it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP user. WP:LYRICS applies. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie. → Plaisir d'amour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These are the first two lines of this song, the lyrics of which are no longer mentioned at the target. No indication on why this song over any other song should contain its first two sentences as redirects, as such an act would be an exception and not the norm. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor → Lili Marleen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Vor der" not mentioned at the target article. Unlikely search term because pages about songs tend to be located at an article that matches their title, not this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other discussions above and below. These are the first lyrics to this song, which someone might remember without retaining the title, so it's potentially helpful for people searching for the song in question. Regards, SONIC 678 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition → Police and Thieves (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target page can be reached after the first three words. The rest of this lyric is not mentioned at the target page, and someone specifying all this information instead of stopping at "police and thieves" is likely looking for particular information related to this quote; information that we do not contain anywhere on Wikipedia. Zero mentions across the whole site. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. The rest is in the domain of WP:CHEAP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choose life (quote)

Choose life (quote) → Trainspotting (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of this quote at the target article. Confusing redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Remove Acknowledging of course that the U.S. is not the world, Choose life has a very different meaning here, and presumably in much of the rest of the world where abortion is a hot topic. It seems that this redirect is probably in reference to the Choose Life Project, a U.K. based charity surrounding drug use (although the UK does also have a Choose Life anti-abortion group), it feels far too abstract to actually be useful to anyone, as a side note, Choose Life license plates would likely be a far less obscure redirect. Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Foxtrot620, also the quote is not mentioned at the target article and the redirect has no incoming links from article namespace. JIP | Talk 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than decrease confusion, it increases it. --rogerd (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in grand theft auto advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of charaters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
List of characters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirected article [2] until and unless a valid AFD of the article is done (rather than a unilateral undiscussed and unproposed redirect). Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice per Softlavender and WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [3]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a perfectly valid target and alternative to deletion for character lists that are clearly without sourcing for independent notability. The plot section covers everything the reader needs to know about these characters. Sending this unsourced "list" to AfD is needless process unless you think deletion is a better outcome than redirection here. If the "list" title is the issue, then rename as "Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance" but you'd still have the old title pointing to that redirect. czar 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that many, many "Lists of GameTitle characters" articles redirect to their parent articles' Plot sections same as this does. It's a common redirection because these character lists are just as commonly created, almost always without regard to sourcing. czar 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no way that the original LoC would survive AFD, and the game itself is only 10ish hours, so even a (new) character section as redirect target seems overkill. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain per Czar. Softlavender and Thryduulf suggest restoring and sending to AFD for procedural reasons. as Sgeureka recognizes, this will surely fail to be retained at AFD, which as Czar correctly points out, will likely lead to a redirect. I see no reason to go through that process. Thryduulf points to WP:BLAR, but I see nothing there requiring us to restore it or go through AFD, since no one appears to be arguing for the article to restored.
I'm confused by Steel1943 and Sgeureka's insistence that the redirect target be an actual list. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a fine target without any modifications. We can and routinely do redirect list titles to articles which discuss the list subject but aren't lists. Daask (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Keep/Retain as no list exists at the target. Other list redirects may exist but because they haven't yet been discussed at RfD. Agree with Czar's compromise of moving the BLARd page to Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance and refine to Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters. Make it a move without redirect and delete the other nominated entries. Jay 💬 13:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In some cases not explicitly targetinng a list might be harmful, but this isn't one of them. These character lists are common on Wikipedia and we should take readers to where there is relevant information. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a prequel to Grand Theft Auto III, the game features both new and returning characters. The protagonist is an original character named Mike, who in his quest to avenge the supposed death of his partner, Vinnie, crosses paths with several prominent criminals that offer him assistance. These include explosives expert and firearms trader 8-Ball, Yardies leader King Courtney, and yakuza co-leader Asuka Kasen, all previously featured in Grand Theft Auto III, although their characters received significant changes in appearance and lifestyle to reflect who they were one year prior. is close enough to a list for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "charaters" redirects as implausible misspellings, but weak keep the correctly spelled ones per Czar and others. The target section may not exactly be a list, but as others have argued above me, it's the closest thing we have on Wikipedia to a list of characters on that game. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience readers who are looking for relevant information on these characters. Regards, SONIC 678 16:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 Formula E World Championship

2025–26 Formula E World Championship → Formula E (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nothing on the target page or google about this season. TOOSOON. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 02:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not mentioned at target. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope horns

Antelope horns → Asclepias asperula (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It seems to me that the primary meaning of the phrase "Antelope horns" would be the horns of the antelope. BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Antelope#Horns per nom. Cremastra (u — c) 13:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any places where there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns? Any piped links that would be made simpler by this change? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "Antelope" has had 1,872,153 pageviews in the past five years, while "Asclepias asperula" has had 31,121 (and "Antelope horns" has had 140), it is evident that the plant is ridiculously obscure relative to the animal (by a ratio of 60 to 1), which animal happens to be exemplified by its horns. BD2412 T 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently this redirect is from a common name for a plant to its scientific name. If a redirect is needed to link to Antelope#Horns the page Antelope horn could be created as a redirect that would naturally disambiguate. Then using [[Antelope horn]]s]] would link to information about the group of animals. While the redirect under discussion is not currently used I will note that it should have been used instead of the common name being piped to the species name on Guadalupe River State Park. The other use of the phrase "antelope horns" that is wikilinked is on the page Taforalt is currently piped to Antelope rather than to the section. As such I am not convinced there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns. It should be left as it is or turned into a disambiguation page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget with hatnote. Your average person is not going to know that there is a plant called 'Antelope horns' and would be WP:SURPRISED by targeting to the plant. Meanwhile, there does not seem to be enough in the way of alternate targets to support an entire disambiguation page. Retarget to the article section on the anatomy of the African bovine; add a hatnote pointed to the plant-- "Antelope horns" redirects here. For the plant named "antelope horns", see Asclepias asperula. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget with hatnote. Google Scholar results suggest that the primary sense of this term, even among scholars, is the animal organ. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Antelope#Horns per above. Adding a hatnote to the plant won't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Antelope#Horns (there is an anchor for that already). It would be nice to dedicate a section "Horns" to the horns, so there would be a place for hatnote there. Викидим (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India as a potential superpower

India as a potential superpower → Potential superpower#India (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I would just like to solicit other users' opinions on whether this redirect should be turned back into an article, given how much content it had. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect too. This fork was deleted per this AfD and was created without consensus. Whatever was necessary in that fork was almost covered on the main article of Potential superpower. Rest is not needed given we also have Indian Century. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever was in the redirect before it got turned into one is irrelevant. This redirect is simply a minor variation of the target section header. RfD is not for discussing AfD results, perhaps try WP:Deletion review. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a paradigm example of redirects being cheap. BD2412 T 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible search term variant. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect, plausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-IN

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 withdrawn. I continue to make a fool of myself. :) (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-IN → Hindi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another weird redirect that seems to be trying to imitate a language code? Very vague. Cremastra (u — c) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As me, No reason to delete the redirect Zach (talk to me) 04:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Cremastra: This is the IETF language tag for Indian Hindi. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:24, 27 October 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).

Th-TH

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Th-TH → Thai language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Thai language is not the primary topic here. Not sure what is, honestly, but this seems like an awfully implausible search term. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As me, No reason to delete the redirect Zach (talk to me) 04:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid IETF language tag. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:25, 27 October 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).

Neo-mooris

Neo-mooris → Moorish sovereign citizens (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-moors

Neo-moors → Moorish sovereign citizens (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make this but AFAIK this is a synonym for the target (or the science temple... i forgot). I'll find a source and add it later PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. There are sources that use this in reference to this topic, but also some other topics. Unsure of what to do here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib → Emmanuel Gharib (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unclear connection to target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:28, 27 October 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).

Çornosturuf

Çornosturuf → Chornyi Ostriv, Khmelnytskyi Oblast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Shows up on some Turkish pages; affinity to target is unclear. Cremastra (u — c) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kırıvçe

Kırıvçe → Kryvche (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems to be Turkish-style transliteration? Regardless, unmentioned at target, and searches have not helped elucidate the meaning of this redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necko Jenkins

Necko Jenkins → Nikko Jenkins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created as a "likely misspelling," but Google does not show anyone misspelling it this way. In some Southern U.S. accents "Necko" and "Nikko" might be pronounced similarly, but not in a Great Plains accent. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]